Tv license? Do I need it?

[Justamumof2x]

I’m so sick of receiving tv license threatening letters saying I must have a tv license etc.

I have sky tv. I usually have kids programmes through the day in the background such as babytv channel and I watch one of the channels that show police interceptors. Other than that it’s all Netflix or films.

so surely I don’t need a tv license?

Imagine getting so worked up about whether someone else pays a TV licence. Crazy

No, but I've seen people getting convicted in the magistrates court for it, and they seem amazed that it was a criminal conviction.

As you have Sky yes you do need one because you can receive BBC and other live TV that way. I don't have one as I only watch non live content on streaming subscriptions or YouTube videos, as I'm early 30s most of my mates don't have a TV licence unless they have kids and want them to watch kids TV!

I don't think they can, the charter thing runs until end of 2027, though Labour government will probably renew it.

It's 3 facts that matter, really:

1. If you watch ANY live broadcast TV on any channel, or BBC iPlayer, you have to pay for a licence.
2. If you only ever watch streaming or catch-up (apart from iPlayer) TV or DVDs, you don't have to pay for a licence.
3. The money from the licence fee (less all the admin costs and profits that Crapita take) goes to the BBC - but this is completely unconnected to whether the live TV you watch is from the BBC or not.

Is it unfair? Yes, very much so - especially as the BBC get to have their cake and eat it by getting the fees for people watching ALL live TV from all providers, yet their own streaming platform isn't exempt like all other providers' streaming services are.

I agree with PP that the BBC licence is unsustainable, unjustifiable and will not survive very much longer. I like a lot of the BBC's output, and will continue to subscribe when it changes; but it isn't fair to force (with menaces, harassment and threats of prosecution) those who consume no BBC content to subsidise it for those who do.

Can you imagine if people who only ever shopped in Lidl were legally required to randomly pay Waitrose - on the basis that they're buying food... and Waitrose sell food as well... and Waitrose want to use their money to give their own customers exclusive offers?

To be fair, although it's a huge total revenue, I don't think you can deny that the money that goes to the BBC from the licence fee is what funds them to make their programmes and run their websites.

It's not unreasonable to be angry at people who are happily and freely using the BBC's services but refusing to contribute to it - just like most people would get angry at people who commit benefit fraud and take what they are not genuinely entitled to whilst expecting 'somebody else' to fund it for them.

It's similar to shoplifting really. I don't like that either

I think the unreasonable part is the frankly ridiculous assertion that anyone claiming they don't watch BBC programming or access BBC services is a "liar".

BBC is so synonymous with TV, News etc in the UK that some people really seem to be incapable of grasping that no, not every UK citizen regards the BBC as a default service. Some people own TV's purely for watching streaming services and have absolutely no interest in anything the BBC provides, others don't even own a TV. It's not the 1970s any more where most families' only source of affordable entertainment was night after night sat in front of BBC/ITV output on the box.

IMO it's perfectly understandable why more and more people are becoming annoyed by being harassed by a service they do not use. It's an utterly ridiculous situation that Capita can continually harass you, threaten fines, assert that you are breaking the law by default simply because they have no record of a licence at your address, etc. For a start, not owning a licence is in no way an offence in itself, so not only is there that, but there is the secondary assumption that you are also watching BBC while not in possession of a licence. It's completely absurd they are permitted to operate on a model that presumes guilt.

Obviously people just watch streaming services like Netflix and Disney don't need a licence, DS doesn't have one as he does this. OP has Sky though and is watching Sky channels which need a licence

I agree with you 100%.

I think that people who do choose to watch the BBC whilst believing that they shouldn't have to pay the licence fee to do so are dishonest and a disgrace.

Likewise, I think it's disgraceful that the many people who don't choose to watch/actively avoid the BBC should be forced to pay a licence fee that goes to the BBC.

I may be wrong but it seems you don't understand when a licence is required, because you talk about watching BBC.

A licence is still needed if you never ever watch any BBC programmes or use iPlayer, but you still watch even 1 scheduled programme a year on other channels ie itv, channel 4 or 5, or subscribe to a service such as Sky( like OP) which is capable of transmitting scheduled programmes.

Sozzlehorse

I am not a defender of the license fee - I do think it needs to be changed. But I do get pissed off with people that try to find workarounds that still mean they benefit from receiving license fee funded things, like radio or TV. It’s just theft.

But I would prefer it to be completely overhauled.

The BBC content for kids though is well worth the fee, I don’t let DD watch tons of TV but the educational programming is exceptionally good. DD’s favourite things are Operation Ouch and the Shakespeare productions. I’m much happier having her watch that compared to drivel on Youtube. I don’t think people appreciate the value of that type of programming and we will mourn it when it is no longer there and we just have rubbish.

You are wrong, I'm perfectly familiar with precisely when a licence is required and when it is not, hence why I object to being subject to endless threats from Capita when I simply have no need of their product.

Also no idea how you have concluded I require a refresher, as at no point did I say anything at all that suggested I actually watch live TV, BBC or otherwise. I didn't so much talk about watching BBC as talk about not watching it. The point about Capita making an assumption you are watching BBC is purely with reference to the fact Capita essentially is the BBC, and without TV licencing Sky, Netflix and so on would not similarly be hassling people who don't subscribe to their product. From my perspective my ire is entirely BBC-related, hence the reference.

"Streaming Services" does not just refer to Netflix, Amazon Prime etc, subs services which do, once in a blue moon, broadcast live programming. It also describes Discord, Twitch, Youtube etc, services which are predominantly delivering content which isn't even subject to the purview of Television Licencing regulations in the first place.