stopping the tv license?

[skybluepearl]

Not quite AIBU but wanted to post here due to high traffic.

We don't watch that much TV and have a limited number of channels due to living in a hilly area. On the whole TV seems quite seems rubbish these days. I do really enjoy sitting down to watch a film and the odd interesting programme though. The kids have a maximum of one hours screen time each day -they choose between wii/computer/TV.

I'd really like to rejig things. Maybe stop paying the TV licence/stop watching TV and join love films? Have thought about maybe watching i-player on TV through the Wii - but am not sure if we still have to pay our TV licence for this?

How are things set up in your house if you don't watch normal telly? How did you find making the change?

And another one: you don't need a licence just to have a TV in the house, contrary to what some posters think.

We went the non-TV way 3 or 4 years ago when we realised we rarely watched it, and the year before we ditched the TV licence we had watched it 3 times that year.

You can still watch DVDs, you can still watch online as long as it's not live. You need to tell the TV licencing people this. They will hassle you for a bit, and may send you lots of red letters but I found it quite helpful when I spoke on the phone to them about why we didn't have a licence, and now they contact me every 2 years to check our situation hasn't changed.

When I'm somewhere with a TV, like a hotel I usually have a look at the TV, but I'm not usually bothered to watch anything. Although we did watch the apprentice on iplayer (not live, of course).

custardo you don't have to disconnect the aerial - but it makes sense to if you think your kids might watch TV by mistake. You just have to not watch live TV (and they can tell, with the van, if you are, by looking at the signals coming from your house).

and they can tell, with the van, if you are, by looking at the signals coming from your house).

OMG I didn't realise people really believed that ..... the vans are empty, my cousin was accused of having a TV and she really hasn't as it happens and asked them to open the van to show her the recording equipment, she refused, went to court and asked them to prove they had evidence, they couldn't and it got thrown out

• not she refused, they refused, there is no recording equipment.

What's the logic behind that you don't need a TV licence to watch a programme that's already been broadcast?

I had always thought that the TV licence was to pay for programmes to be made, so why have they decided if you are watching it 10 minutes after it's broadcast you don't have to pay for it?

We're another family who don't have a TV or license at the moment. We do watch quite a lot on i-player/4od etc and watch a lot of DVDs on the computer. I think it's much more convenient that way as you can watch whenever you want to.

I do sort of agree with receiverofopiniongiver in that it doesn't seem quite right to watch everything that we want to on i-player even though we're not paying a license fee. But we're not going to volunteer to pay when legally we don't need to! And I would object to paying the full fee without having access to live TV. I would be happy to pay a partial fee if/when they ever update the rules to take new technology into account. It's also worth remembering though that the BBC also provide a whole host of other services that are available to non-license payers- Website, radio stations etc.

Oh I forgot to mention that we've had no TV license for almost 4 years now and we've never been hassled at all. We informed them as soon as we moved house that we didn't have a TV, and did get a couple of letters. But when someone knocked on our door, I asked him if he wanted to come and look around and he said that there was no need- I wouldn't be inviting him in if I had anything to hide. So they're not always a pain to deal with.

TruculentSnail is correct. I have never owned or even seen a TV licence but after years of just using a computer to watch films on, I finally got annoyed enough to ask the TV licensing people if I could buy a nice big TV and connect it to a DVD player or to a computer. I was worried that I would have to modify a shop bought TV in some way... this was in their emailed reply:

"You can indeed purchase any television you like to watch pre-recorded DVD's, video's or use as a monitor. The only requirements we have are that it is not connected to an aerial (internal or external) and that, where possible, the television is not tuned in to any channel. No further modification is required as long as no broadcasts are received in any way."
Customer Services, Wed, 13 Jul 2005

thanks for all the info

We didn't have a a licence for years - we had two TVs (no aerial), numberous laptops etc on which we watched DVDs & iPlayers - TV Licensing knew this, came to the house, were fine about it.

I did feel a bit guilty though because I listen to loads of radio and the kids watched a fair bit on iPlayer.
Really, if anyone has lived abroad and seen how rubbish foreign media is and how blissful it is to be able to watch TV without ads/listen to half-intelligent radio, you'd really appreciate the BBC.

"But yes you would have to get rid of the actual tv set."

Not if the TV is analogue and your area has been converted to digital. If you have no Freeview box the TV can still be used for connecting an old PC (eg BBC Micro, Spectrum) or game (eg Atari 2600, etc), or for watching DVDs but the TV cannot decode the Freeview (DVB-T) signals, and is therefore useless for live TV shows.

My 28" (old) widescreen Samsung is no good for terrestrial broadcasts, but if I wanted to buy a Freeview box or TV with Freeview or FreeSat then the store has to pass on my details.

You cannot prove a negative (ie I cannot prove I don't watch iPlayer for live TV content) but I can prove I download plenty of TV shows each month.

You definitely do not need a license just to have a TV in the house.

Provided you are not watching or recording live TV you do not need a license.

however TV licensing are the most persitant, unreasonable organisation I have ever come across. Be prepared for threatening letters, threatening visits and them generally making a pita of themseleves.

Remember legally the onus is on them to prove that you are watching or recording TV. However their organisational approach is to start from the pov that anyone who says they don't watch TV is a lying shite who cannot be trusted.

Don't you think it's a bit wrong though (morally, I mean), to not pay a license fee, and then take advantage of i-player (bbc funded) in that way? We don't watch very much live tv at all - mostly just sky plus stuff, and then watch when we feel like it. Why should you get out of paying - just because the programme you're watching isn't a live one? If we all did that, there would be no bbc.

mamatomany - they do have handheld devices so can detect the LO from a TV, and in the past that might give enough info to determine the station, so under interview, a person may admit to having watched. As you indicate, however, being able to supply proof in the form of a recording or whatever might not be viable.

receiverofopiniongiver - What's the logic behind that you don't need a TV licence to watch a programme that's already been broadcast?

Probably that some of the most expensive content is sport, and that isn't available for subsequent download, so perhaps they could grab a few collars on the evenings of significant football matches, the Olympics, Wimbledon, etc. It annoys the hell out of UK citizens with a TV licence at home who cannot legitimately view shows via iPlayer if working overseas, and some people abroad would willingly pay a fee to have access, but there's no current mechanism for this. A couple of years ago some BBC boss did suggest a licence being needed for iPlayer access, and this is still rumbling in the background.

Thanks pozzled (re inviting them in) - I will reverse my decision now... had been very much one of 's*d them' (and they'd need a warrant and accompanying policeman) because they sent threats etc every quarter for 7 years when there was no-one living here. I had been of the opinion I'd be as awkward as possible, on the lines of them trying to make my Linux PCs display TV, or even the iMac and eMac (old OSX versions, Flash is out of date and no likelihood of me getting a fancy new Mac). With 2 dozen PCs, they'd have wasted an hour or two just getting some of them to boot up.

regarding "I would object to paying the full fee without having access to live TV." - I think if you paid the full fee, then you could watch the vast majority of what goes out on TV at present.

The only time I can think of when there are 'gaps' is when they provide coverage of some events on the internet, and have regular TV content on BBC1/2. Even with a TV licence, it would not allow everyone access to additional video, such as sport, which is sometimes only available on digital platforms via the red button (so I assume it is only on Freeview and FreeSat). It would be available and legal but without a suitable box to get the signals, it would exclude you (and my sister, who has a licence but no Freeview at present, so only gets 4 or 5 channels [she's in Sussex and I cannot remember if Channel 5 is available where she lives]).

Its £12 a month is it really worth not paying?

"regarding "I would object to paying the full fee without having access to live TV." - I think if you paid the full fee, then you could watch the vast majority of what goes out on TV at present."

As far as I am aware, they don't put things like World Cup football matches live on i-player. (I may be mistaken as obviously I have never tried to watch live). This is the main thing I would want to watch, and if I ever have to pay a full TV license fee for i-player then I would expect to have access to live matches- not everything on freeview but certainly the ones on BBC 1 and 2 and ITV.

Personally I would support a change to i-player where you had an open-to-everyone selection, and then an enhanced selection- only available to license payers through a special username and password. I imagine that the cost might be too much though. But I can't help thinking that they will need to make changes to the license system in the near future.

"Don't you think it's a bit wrong though (morally, I mean), to not pay a license fee, and then take advantage of i-player (bbc funded) in that way? We don't watch very much live tv at all - mostly just sky plus stuff, and then watch when we feel like it. Why should you get out of paying - just because the programme you're watching isn't a live one? If we all did that, there would be no bbc."

MrsMellowDrummer This is why I think they need to make changes. But I won't pay a fee out of a sense of 'moral obligation' any more than I will pay extra taxes because I use my public library a lot or access the NHS more than many of my friends who are a similar age.

nancydrewfoundaclue - quite agree, their PoV that everyone should have a licence and to distrust anyone who merely claims no interest as if they must be lying is what annoys more than anything.

MrsMellowDrummer - if I could opt to pay for only some aspects of what the BBC puts out, I would gladly do so. Some estimate recently put the spend on BBC Radio 4 at 75 Million. I don't know the spend on many of the features or services I don't use, but there must be ten times (and then some) spent on coverage of sport, than on R4.

If I only ever wanted to watch Channel 4 and Channel 5 for news, drama, and comedy, should I really be forced to pay for BBC coverage and resources to cover football or cricket ?

If you look at Local radio from the BBC there are some 40-50 stations. Some have coverage of as few as 75,000 people. The 'Nations' as the BBC describe them, of N Ireland, Scotland and Wales have 1.8 M, 5 M and 3 M people, respectively yet each gets only a single station in English, so it is hardly 'local' for the majority of listeners.

The BBC gets 3,000 Million a year, so on the guesswork that the services I use cost say 250 Million (and I am counting the full price such as 75 M for Radio 4, even though I cannot listen to all output if I am also going to spend time listening to Radio 2, Radio Wales and Radio 7), then I'd love to pay the BBC about 15 quid. Its the method used by Sky, with a basic cost and then additional fees for extras.

If the BBC charged say 20 quid and then added on 10 quid for sport, 10 quid for comedy, 10 quid for drama, 2.50 per national radio station (R1, R2, R3, etc), 5 pounds to cover 'local radio', 10 pounds for news, 10 pounds for children's TV, and then 15 pounds for each of the national TV stations, we'd be back near 150 quid.

Would it work ? No, of course not, but the BBC is given carte blanche to add services and cost without consultation. They have overspent (eg 150 Million over budget one year on their web site), and show a lack of responsibility. They may not have 'adverts' as such, but they do have trailers for any and everything, including ones for 'pay your licence fee'. I would happily see them changed to a commercial service and fight it out with the rest, while doing away with the licence fee, payable whether you watch them, or never watch/listen to their output (and that strikes me as most unfair part of the whole Act).

I see your point NetworkGuy, but then I'm sceptical that that kind of change would result in a better, or even equivalent service from the BBC. Much of the tv/radio output from the BBC is heads shoulders knees and toes above its competitors. If the Sky model works so well, why isn't it's programming of an equivalent standard?

I don't watch sports either. I don't mind paying for other people though (as long as they don't watch in my house). I love radio 4, and love some programmes on tv that I bet not that many people watch. If they opted to not pay for my programmes, then they might disappear. I know the BBC aren't perfect, but you could also argue that the fact that they have the freedom to be "not always perfect" (not always possible in a commercial station, I would imagine), results in better overall programming?

I also think that even people who don't watch tv benefit indirectly from living in a country where the BBC exists.

Maybe it should be funded through general taxation, rather than having its own specific license? We don't get to pick and choose what our taxes are spent on. If we live in an area without street lighting, or don't have children in state education, it doesn't mean we get a rebate on our taxes.

this thread has reminded me that my tv licence has been cancelled due to non payment of DD so need to repay it. think i owe 3 months :(

will pay what i owe tomorrow

I'm sceptical that that kind of change would result in a better, or even equivalent service from the BBC.

perhaps surprisingly, I agree, it's why I later wrote "Would it work? No..."

Radio 3 is one case where fee payers fund a minority service (and perhaps are unaware that on DAB, where R2 and R4 have been 128 kbps, R3 has been offering higher quality, at 192 kbps... and there are plans for an internet only "high definition" service for Radio 3 to give even better quality).

As I say the BBC makes decisions behind closed doors and has experimented with webcam coverage of Radio programmes (to what end, I know not!), this new HD radio service, and mess with the website (message boards, blogs, etc) month after month, to the annoyance of many of their users.

They seem to shift priorities "on a whim" so the message board for Woman's Hour was scrapped for being too popular because they said it was costing too much probably because they have full time moderation. MNHQ has costs, but relies on members to report violations and act most of the time in response, where the BBC had such micro-control they shut their message boards except when they want to staff them, and seem incapable of handling post-moderation. I know the BBC is concerned about the libel laws but the numbers of posts must have been really low most of the time (esp given their 'opening hours') but nonetheless they could not cope (while having 6 or is it 7 separate sections for postings related to The Archers !!)

pozzled - I feel sure there is need of some change, though I'd expect that in terms of 'standard' and 'premium' I'd want any UK licence fee payer to get 'premium' access whenever they logged in, from wherever they were (remembering that in some countries abroad, they may actually have difficulty viewing things, but downloading would surely be possible).

Many people outside the UK (ex-pats and other nationals, from Canada and USA for example) sometimes express the wish to pay a fee and be granted access.

I suppose that a basic fee for 'standard' access would allow for much content to be available, esp as some servers are/were in N America already, so transport of data would not be as costly from one part to another - traffic in/out of USA is paid for by each partner country (not the USA at all!)

pozzled - think you'd get short shrift about 'other TV content' and be told to get a cheap Freeview adaptor and s/h TV. Can understand if you wanted to watch World Cup etc but had not been aware of blocking such items from internet. Must look back to find some ISP's report on massive peaks when events were on because of so many people using web streaming.