To ask if you're going to buy a tv license if you don't have a tv?

[Attethersend43]

New law is coming in this September forcing those who watch iplayer on devices to buy a tv license.

I don't have a tv and watch iplayer very rarely...

Should I buy a license?

Netflix is shite. No variety at all. Just endless box sets of poor dramas that aren't quite good enough to get an airing on one of the prime channels. Same goes for Prime and most of the channels on Sky.

ITV and C4 attract investment via advertising which they can then spend on production. If the BBC were forced to compete for advertising those channels would suffer hugely and be unable to compete on the scale they currently do.

The BBC gives you such a diverse offering. I condemn anyone who refuses to pay their licence fee to a lifetime watching US TV with endless adverts, truly biased news and the Kardashians.

And the very fact that both the left and right insist that BBC is biased is probably good evidence that they are doing a good job.

You don't know how lucky you are.

I think ultimately this is not going to work for them, as more and more people are not watching TV the traditional way. I think they imagine loads of people who occasionally use IPlayer will rush out to buy a licence, but from looking on here, more people seem to be saying 'No I will just stop using it/delete the app'. Their viewing figures will actually go down, as a pp said. They are a bit daft to insist on the full licence or nothing, and not offer any alternatives, it's shooting themselves in the foot really.

TBF to the BBC, they have always said they don't want to charge the full license fee to people who only used iplayer catchup services. They were looking into something different.

This was forced onto them by John Wittingdale and rushed through without any thought. You might have thought the government had better legislation to rush through, but apparently not.

"Netflix is shite. No variety at all. Just endless box sets of poor dramas that aren't quite good enough to get an airing on one of the prime channels."

Like Sherlock, Luther, Peaky Blinders?

The Killing, Arne Dahl, Borgen, Wallander, The Bridge, Orphan Black, Dr Who?

But most of those were made for the BBC. And wouldn't exist otherwise. So they wouldn't be on Netflix if the BBC didn't exist.

Does BBC content suddenly become 'poor' when it's aired elsewhere? And Netflix subscribers are paying to watch it. In fact I'd hazard a guess that the BBC make more money selling their content to other networks than they raise from the licence fee. The difference is Netflix subscribers only see the BBC content that is genuinely high quality, we don't support gubbins like talent shows, soaps and the endless stream of shit that passes for daytime programming.

"Netflix is shite. No variety at all. Just endless box sets of poor dramas that aren't quite good enough to get an airing on one of the prime channels."
Happy Valley, (The Original) House of Cards, Top Boy.

we don't support gubbins like talent shows, soaps and the endless stream of shit that passes for daytime programming
^This. We also don't support million pound payoffs and multi-million pound pensions for failed execs paid out of a legally enforceable fee, or the hire cost of helicopters to go and hover over Sir Cliff Richard's house, incorrect accusations of child abuse (£185,000 in damages to Lord McAlpine) whilst covering up their own lamentable history, documentaries deliberately edited to make the Queen look bad, £10 million+ wasted on DMI, £98 million on its successor, fabric. £200k in legal fees trying to resist a an FOI request to disclose a report (the Balen report on its Middle East coverage).

There is more, much more.

I don't hate the BBC, I just don't wish to fund it's dodgy activities any more.

So many astonished people on here, it's great

Yeah I'm astonished so many people who pay their licence can't spell it - but if mention that I'll get torn to shreds for being a wanky pedant.

Oh, and that's before we start on lack of women on BBC panel shows, and the ageism and sexism that they have lost employment tribunals about.

To the people saying stuff like "all broadcasters have fatcats/sexism/crap reporting/shit programs" - if the BBC is just a "me too" organisation that's going to ape SKY, The Daily Mail etc, then why should it be funded in a unique way?

For the BBC bias - there's not just left wing vs right wing types of bias. I find the way that they cover African stories to be very patronising (I've discussed with friends who find the same thing), but unless you're getting news stories about the continent from other sources (including local ones), you wouldn't necessarily pick up on it. stories are either disaster / the continent is such a mess politically / famine or twee "oh isn't it quaint how they built this road" type of story. I didn't grow up in the UK and still find it really odd that people are so unflinchingly loyal to the local broadcasting service, always going on about how it's the best in the world. Surely just being complicit in covering up Jimmy Savile's activities would make you question how awesome it is. We're talking about someone where it was an open secret that he was sexually abusing children (in amongst others) and they had him presenting children's shows. I mean - WTF?!

wason

You make valid points with payoffs, damages etc, but if you resort to pulling apart errors due to autocorrect, dyslexia or just plain clumsiness you just come across as a mean girl who, when faced with another perfectly valid point, retorts with "yeah but you have split ends and smell like cabbage".

You are being a wanky pedant.

I'm amazed that people think that the BBC news is good. As far as I can see they go out of their way to avoid reporting anything contentious or that might be construed as being critical of the government (look at how they ignored the way that the NHS was essentially removed from public hands and accountability a few years ago). Currently BBC news is simply a round up of the day's Olympic events. I suspect they are grateful not to have to report proper news. Channel 4 news puts the BBC to shame.

Having said that I am a wildlife documentary nut and no one does these better than the BBC so I will be paying for a license fee for as long as they continue to make these. I also like a lot of the BBC4 programming (which, again, has been thrown under the bus at the moment, so that they can cover the Olympics instead).

I agree - this "envy of the world" stuff is like our "democracy" and legal system and our "special relationship" with the USA - it only exists here, not so much once you leave these islands :)

Thanks boogers, you prove my point entirely.

A lot of the BBC wildlife stuff is also on Netflix, and it's free of BBC adverts, too.

Absy, thanks for posting your perspective, I agree with everything you say.

You're welcome wason, glad to assist you in your quest for moral superiority. Next time there's a thread by someone who has been made fun of because they can't spell due to a learning difficulty I'll be sure to point them in your direction so as you can rip them apart just a little bit more.

Boogers, you're making me laugh out loud now.

LordRothermere the olympics finishes this weekend and hopefully programming will get back to normal next week. However, the Paralympics start in September and that's covered by channel 4 so don't bank on that being normal service.

wasonthelist but they were made by the BBC in the first place, and I am happy to fund programmes like this with my licence fee. I don't need Netflix because I can watch or record BBC programmes anyway.

But most of those were made for the BBC. And wouldn't exist otherwise. So they wouldn't be on Netflix if the BBC didn't exist.

Unknowable - The BBC commissions TV drama, so do other TV companies. Quite a lot of BBC TV is made by independent companies who could make it for anyone. The BBC often work with broadcasters in other other countries on joint ventures. Obviously something from the BBC wouldn't be on Netflix without the BBC - but that's not the same as saying perfectly good content couldn't be available on Netflix without the BBC. Netflix has excellent C4 drama too, just as one example.

The point being made was that in relation to someone (who didn't seem to know much about about Netflix but was saying how great the BBC is) claiming that only second-rate drama ever appears on Netflix.

IMO the title of this thread has been composed to encourage a certain reply.

What if I ask "To ask if you're going to buy a tv license if you don't watch TV programmes?"

But there's no reason why the BBC should cease to exist entirely anyway.

It might be true that as the market continues to shift towards on-demand television that they would start to concentrate on the big sellers that they can then sell on, but there will still be a huge profit to be made in the big brands such as Doctor Who or In The Night Garden. And that's how it works for all other TV production companies and channels. Channel 4 or Peppa Pig seem to survive quite happily without receiving license payer funding.

It may well tho that they make less daytime dross and/or niche programming- but, meh if you ask me.

I don't watch it. I won't pay for it. Simples.

The Beeb have had their chance to get on board with the new trend for on demand TV. They could have chosen to develop their iPlayer brand and back catalogue, and made a competitive product to rival the value for money of Netflix or Now TV. They chose not to. Their loss.