to think the BBC has had it's day and it really is over now?

[hamstersarse]

Obviously this debate has been rumbling for years, but it seems to me that the tide has turned very quickly in recent months.

They genuinely do not seem to represent anyone well, and the license fee model is just so broken and irrelevant to how we now consume our art, news and content.

It remains a great idea (possibly fundamental to a civilised society) to have a non-biased media outlet, but the BBC just do not seem up to the job.

Does anyone still feel they are a reliable source of news? Does anyone agree with the license fee model? Can we not get their type of content elsewhere, by choice?

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

That’s not right. You need a licence for ITV and Channel 4 and Channel 5, even if you don’t watch BBC. It doesn’t matter which terrestrial channel.

No, you do not need a licence to watch any of those channels.

The problem is that it's impossible in practice to watch any of those channels because they are invariably part of a package that includes the BBC, therefore you require a licence because you can also receive the BBC

The language in the act is quite concise. It refers specifically to 'if you intend to watch'. This is why you do not require a TV licence if, for example, you simply own a laptop and an internet connection. That is sufficient to permit you to watch iPlayer or the BBC's live streams, but so long as you do not 'intend' to watch them there is no requirement for you to preemtively purchase a licence. Any other way and it would essentially amount to a 'computer' or 'internet' tax.

The problem is they government made sure that it isn't that simply when it comes to Television. If you can receive ITV on your telly, then you can also receive BBC, therefore Capita have grounds for ensuring that you have a licence.

You do not require a licence if all you do on your TV is watch DVD's, stream Netflix or similar, but you are required to purchase one if all you do is watch Sky for example, because all Sky packages include BBC by default. It's effectively a racket, the government legislated to make it so.

Are you trying to spread misinformation on purpose or do you really just know the actual information to begin with?

www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

"The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:"

"watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
"watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)"
"download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer."
"This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder"

There is plenty of information online, all easily googleable. I'd strongly suggest you go and check your facts before you spout utter garbage.

You need a licence for any live TV, regardless of the channel or if you never watch BBC.

You need a licence to watch live TV on ANY TV terrestrial channel:

“The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:
watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer.“

The other thing I'm disgusted with the BBC about is the way they've completely ignored the 3 million self employed who've fallen through the cracks in Rishi's Covid support packages. If it were any other group of people, the BBC would be all over it. Just look at their 2 weeks of wall to wall wingeing about the A level results - that only affected a few hundred thousand people, the majority of whom would have got the grades they needed anyway. Yet complete silence, for month after month, about the self employed who are losing their livelihoods, their businesses, their homes, their savings, because of the holes in the support package which is like Swiss cheese. Rishi needs taking to task but the BBC just aren't interested as it clearly doesn't fit their agenda. At first, Rishi said "no one would be left behind", now he has changed his tune to "we can't help everyone" - if it had been any other subject, BBC would have been all over him.

But then, BBC aren't very good with business/finance/tax matters. After all during one of his annual Budgets when Gordon Brown announced an increase in the upper NIC threshold, BBC were heralding it as good news for higher earners! Sky, ITV, etc were saying correctly it was actually bad news for higher earners. So, the BBC, supposedly the bastion of reliable reporting, got something so simple so badly wrong!

There is plenty of information online, all easily googleable. I'd strongly suggest you go and check your facts before you spout utter garbage.

I'm perfectly familiar with it thanks.

The point was about the specific language, i.e. 'intend to watch'.

You do not require a licence simply because you own computer equipment and an internet connection. You do not technically require a licence to watch programs on subscription services that do not feature BBC content.

That part you are overlooking is the rather significant 'live' caveat. All methods of 'live' delivery either include the BBC as a part of their package, or require the use of equipment in such a manner that you are beyond the point of 'intent', i.e. watching a live stream in a manner that would be equivalent to watching a live broadcast by the BBC.

Again, if all you do is watch catch-up services other than iPlayer, stream netflix etc, play dvds, then there is no requirement for a licence, that includes ITV content, Channel 4 content, and Channel 5 content, because those channels are bugger all to do with the BBC

Always hilarious when someone pitches up with a load of sanctimony having completely misunderstood the post their raving about.

They have never been unbiased, I'm not sure where people get that impression.
They are no worse than any other channel, we needs lots of channels and media companies, or else it would be a monopoly of sky or virgin. Wtf wants their drivel.

I find it a little tiresome to keep hearing CBeebies trotted out as a defence of the BBC. All the household (like mine) which have no children are paying for two channels of content plus goodness knows what else online that are no use to them whatsoever.

When I was young we had about 2 hours a day of children's programming plus the schools programmes which were nowhere near as varied or extensive as ITV schools. It's shocking that 21st century children are being encouraged by a publicly funded broadcaster to spend the entire day, plus some of the evening, rotting their brains in front of the TV.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

There is plenty of information online, all easily googleable. I'd strongly suggest you go and check your facts before you spout utter garbage.

I'm perfectly familiar with it thanks.

The point was about the specific language, i.e. 'intend to watch'.

You do not require a licence simply because you own computer equipment and an internet connection. You do not technically require a licence to watch programs on subscription services that do not feature BBC content.

That part you are overlooking is the rather significant 'live' caveat. All methods of 'live' delivery either include the BBC as a part of their package, or require the use of equipment in such a manner that you are beyond the point of 'intent', i.e. watching a live stream in a manner that would be equivalent to watching a live broadcast by the BBC.

Again, if all you do is watch catch-up services other than iPlayer, stream netflix etc, play dvds, then there is no requirement for a licence, that includes ITV content, Channel 4 content, and Channel 5 content, because those channels are bugger all to do with the BBC

Always hilarious when someone pitches up with a load of sanctimony having completely misunderstood the post their raving about.

You're wrong. You don't want to admit you got it wrong.. but you got it wrong..

That’s not right. You need a licence for ITV and Channel 4 and Channel 5, even if you don’t watch BBC. It doesn’t matter which terrestrial channel.

No, you do not need a licence to watch any of those channels.

You are wrong, right here, totally wrong.

But sure you crack on..

The brexit debacle put me off.
Dreadful. Totally ignored the biggest groundswell of public opinion in decades leading to a massive political eruption and they ignored it, suppressed it and didn't cover it properly.

I used to live in the US. It really makes you appreciate the license fee, and the pernicious effect of advertising on journalism. The BBC is brilliant.

outside of the news the BBC does some amazing stuff, the proms every year, some great dramas (way better than ITV and others) think Line of Duty etc etc, there are so many regional TV & Radio stations not to mention orchestras and other things - keep the BBC at all costs, besides who can complain at £10.65 a month, no other subscription TV is anywhere near as good or that cheap

@Windyjuly

The brexit debacle put me off. Dreadful. Totally ignored the biggest groundswell of public opinion in decades leading to a massive political eruption and they ignored it, suppressed it and didn't cover it properly.

I agree and you could say the same about covid. Time after time, they didn't actually broadcast/inform what the rules/restrictions were as per the official gov.uk website. I think sometimes they even confused themselves with taking half baked comments from various sources and peddling them as the facts. In particular was the initial lockdown where they gave totally false information about "essential" travel and "key" workers which led to many organisations shutting down unnecessarily as they followed what the BBC said rather than the actual gov.uk rules. You really can't forgive the BBC for that kind of mistake which did untold harm to people, businesses and the economy. It also happened many times afterwards. As the country's public service broadcaster they should have concentrated on broadcasting the facts first, i.e. gov.uk published rules to inform the public. Their challenging, questionning etc should have taken second place or should have been done via documentaries, Tonight programme etc rather than in news bulletins. They got it all very badly wrong.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

*You are wrong, right here, totally wrong.

But sure you crack on..*

Haha, ok, just quote one line from my posts and totally ignore the qualifying information underneath it.

You didn't grasp the point and came wading in like a moron and embarrassed yourself. I tried to be polite and help you out by expanding further, but no, here you are again

The problem is that it's impossible in practice to watch any of those channels because they are invariably part of a package that includes the BBC, therefore you require a licence because you can also receive the BBC

Wrong. Even if they were seperate, you'd still need a license as you'd be watching live broadcast TV.

The language in the act is quite concise. It refers specifically to 'if you intend to watch'. This is why you do not require a TV licence if, for example, you simply own a laptop and an internet connection. That is sufficient to permit you to watch iPlayer or the BBC's live streams, but so long as you do not 'intend' to watch them there is no requirement for you to preemtively purchase a licence. Any other way and it would essentially amount to a 'computer' or 'internet' tax.

Pure word salad that's no relevance and is counter to the following nonsense:

The problem is they government made sure that it isn't that simply when it comes to Television. If you can receive ITV on your telly, then you can also receive BBC, therefore Capita have grounds for ensuring that you have a licence.

Wrong. Your ability to receive has no bearing. The government had nothing to do with it.

You do not require a licence if all you do on your TV is watch DVD's, stream Netflix or similar, but you are required to purchase one if all you do is watch Sky for example, because all Sky packages include BBC by default. It's effectively a racket, the government legislated to make it so.

Totally, e tirely, completely wrong. BBC being in a sky package has no bearing on necessitating a license. Sky is live broadcast TV, therefore requires a license.

Do you want to continue being wrong?

That's all your qualifying statements and word salad dealt with and shown to be wrong or inaccurate.

I'll await your reply... No doubt back tracking or dismissing.

They are far too left wing and riddled with virtue signaling woke nonsense.

Rather than arguing between yourselves about whether a tv licence is required, how about you look at the actual statutory legislation - the only thing that matters - www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363

363Licence required for use of TV receiver
(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,is guilty of an offence.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(5)Subsection (1) is not contravened by anything done in the course of the business of a dealer in television receivers solely for one or more of the following purposes—
(a)installing a television receiver on delivery;
(b)demonstrating, testing or repairing a television receiver.
(6)The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt from the requirement of a licence under subsection (1) the installation or use of television receivers—
(a)of such descriptions,
(b)by such persons,
(c)in such circumstances, and
(d)for such purposes,as may be provided for in the regulations.
(7)Regulations under subsection (6) may make any exemption for which such regulations provide subject to compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the regulations.

Have a look at the news sources in US and you will see what will happen without an unbiased independently run new service.
Look how our media ( newspapers) are run now. A few billionaires nearly all whom reside outside the UK, using their outlets to make themselves more richer and powerful and ignoring facts.

They have been terribly doom-mongering and hand-wringing over covid.

@user1497207191

Rather than arguing between yourselves about whether a tv licence is required, how about you look at the actual statutory legislation - the only thing that matters - www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363

363Licence required for use of TV receiver
(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,is guilty of an offence.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(5)Subsection (1) is not contravened by anything done in the course of the business of a dealer in television receivers solely for one or more of the following purposes—
(a)installing a television receiver on delivery;
(b)demonstrating, testing or repairing a television receiver.
(6)The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt from the requirement of a licence under subsection (1) the installation or use of television receivers—
(a)of such descriptions,
(b)by such persons,
(c)in such circumstances, and
(d)for such purposes,as may be provided for in the regulations.
(7)Regulations under subsection (6) may make any exemption for which such regulations provide subject to compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the regulations.

That's a long old quote and link. The relevant pieces are thus:

a TV Licence and to pay a fee for it is mandated by law under the Communications Act 2003 and Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended). It is an offence to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on any channel and on any broadcast platform

I live in the US now and I miss the BBC horribly. I don't even attempt to watch live TV here because there are about 8 sets of adverts per hour of telly, and the news is just awful. Much more opinion based than fact based.

I'm pretty sure the BBC could fund itself by selling licenses to all the immigrants that left the UK and desparately still with they had the BBC!

@MonkeyToesOfDoom

I could be trite and tell you to just go and look at the bill that created the latest iteration of TV licensing, but for the hell of it, I'll humour you.

Wrong. Even if they were seperate, you'd still need a license as you'd be watching live broadcast TV

Completely moot, as the entire point of the government mandating that all suppliers had to include BBC in live broadcast packages was to prevent the likes of Sky offering packages that included the likes of ITV and Channel 4, but excluded BBC, so people could take a Sky package that was outside of the requirements, as they stood at the time, meaning they would not require a licence. It was Sky's determination to do this and the customer enthusiasm for it that forced the governments hand

ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, content is not, and never has been subject to TV licencing. The reason that you can not watch their content 'live' is because in order to do so, it requires a method of delivery that by default means you are also capable of watching BBC live. There is no way around this, hence why you require a licence to watch ITV, Channel 4, or Channel 5 'live'.

This is also why you do not require a licence to watch ITV, Channel 4, or Channel 5 content on their catch up, because their content itself isn't subject to the licence, but you do require a licence to watch delayed programming on iPlayer because it IS BBC content.

This was the entire purpose of the governments last TV licensing bill, because prior to that, you would in theory have been able to watch ITV and such live, without the requirement for a licence, had you been able to find a provider that wasn't also including BBC in their package.

Again, ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5 'content' is not covered by TV licensing, and nor is the product of any other body that is not the BBC.

Pure word salad that's no relevance and is counter to the following nonsense

The fact you can't grasp the point doesn't make it 'word salad'. The language regarding online content, specifically 'if you intend' is very specific for a significant reason. It was put there to ensure that the BBC never had grounds for pursuing people for a licence fee simply because they had the means to watch their programming, i.e. ownership of equipment. This is why you do not require TV licence simply because you own equipment capable of receiving broadcasts, a laptop with internet, mobile device, gaming platform, or even a television set.

Wrong. Your ability to receive has no bearing

Good, glad we're agreed

The government had nothing to do with it

Who on earth do you think came up with the bill that led to the current TV licensing law? The TV fairies??

Totally, e tirely, completely wrong. BBC being in a sky package has no bearing on necessitating a license. Sky is live broadcast TV, therefore requires a license

Of course it has a bearing. It requires a licence not because it is Sky content, but because the law compels Sky to include BBC channels in all of their packages, meaning that if you can watch live TV provided by Sky, you are automatically required to purchase a licence. This was the entire point of the change in legislation. This is why Sky content, supplied to you, a Sky subscriber, on a catch-up service only, does not require a licence, but watching the very same content 'live' does.

Gah, still WISH they had the BBC.

We watch bbc a lot

I love how there isn't any ad breaks ( for now)
BBC output is packed full of trails for other programmes - often on other platforms - most of which can fuck off to the far side of fuck and are just an unwelcome irritation whilst awaiting the advertised programmes.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Blah blah.
You're wrong.

Simple as that. Anyone reading can see your just bringing up tons of nonsense to try and cover up the fact you're wrong.

The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel.

www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one