TV licence numbers

[topcat2014]

Do we really believe that none of the half million licence fee payers who stopped paying are not watching any live television?

94% use bit 80% pay.

The new boss wants a levy and everyone to pay it

I like the BBC and am happy to pay the fee. I watch loads on the BBC. Bewildered by people who say there's no good content.

I suppose that comes down to interest and taste.

The BBC lost the sport I used to watch when it declined to bid for the rights to anything which wasn't protected. I have no interest in Soap Opera or "Light" entertainment, so the likes of Eastenders and Strictly is of zero interest. I do like factual documentary, but the BBC isn't alone in producing good documentary content, and the only other thing I am interested in is News and Current Affairs, especially that which is local to me, and as I've said, BBC Scotland's news and current affairs output is outrageously biased and entirely selective in what they will even report on in the first place.

So from your perspective, perhaps the BBC contains heaps of great content, but from mine, there is little they do which holds any interest for me at all, and the stuff they do still produce which interests me is either Licence-free, or has superior equivalents available elsewhere.

This is another failing of the BBC's overall ethos. They produce plenty of content for mass consumption, then they also produce ridiculously niche stuff, the likes of which used to go out on BBC3 and draw a literal handful of viewers, but there is next to nothing in between because once they've paid for the big budget stuff, and the mandatory "diversity" stuff gets the scraps, there is no money left for anything else.

This is why I can see no issues with the BBC having to fight with other subscription services. People can choose whether they believe the service offers value for their money. Personally, the BBC doesn't produce anything like enough content that actually interests me to merit paying for it. It's not a question of quality, it's interest, the BBC holds next to none for me, hence why I object to paying for it no matter which model that payment takes.

I watch about 10 hours of Youtube content a week. I don't think I've watched 10 hours of BBC in the past year. Why on earth would I want to pay for the BBC?

What are your thoughts on that ? There was a thread last week here discussing that can link if you're interested

Then you can pay a subscription for the content.
And those of us who don’t want it don’t pay and don’t get endlessly hounded because we don’t want it.
Just stop bugging us for for a service we don’t want.

I don't watch any sport, soaps or things like Strictly. Almost no reality TV (maybe The Apprentice).

And I never said it had loads of great content, just that I find it odd people say it has no good content.

But I guess the people who don't watch it don't get to see the good content.

I think not paying and not watching it is fine. That's definitely an option you can take.

Not sure why that needs a comment.

I don't like Sky, so I don't pay for it. Consequently I also don't watch it. You can extend this to millions of things - I don't like coffee, so I don't buy it, and therefore don't drink it ....

Exactly. So we don’t need to be obliged to opt out of any of those.
And we don’t get hounded for it.
So should be the same with the BBC.
No threatening letters from Netflix or requirement to fill in an online form to opt out.

So, don't then? They can't make you fill in the online form, surely? I don't really know much about that form to be honest because I've always had a licence.

Throw the letters in the bin. They have zero power so I'm not sure how they are "hounding you" any more than double glazing adverts are, or any number of bits of crap that come through the door.

I get them at my late mum's house, never filled in anything online, I just put the letters in the recycling.

I don't like Sky, so I don't pay for it. Consequently I also don't watch it. You can extend this to millions of things - I don't like coffee, so I don't buy it, and therefore don't drink it ....

I'm sure you can see why then, if Sky or Coffee manufacturers lobbied the UK government to charge you for Sky and coffee via your utility bills regardless of the fact you do not consume either, that might raise the hackles a little?

This is precisely what the BBC Director is suggesting ought to happen to people who do not consume the BBC, i.e. charge them for it in any case.

I cancelled my licence as I wasn't watching - the harassment in letters - at least two a month - sometimes a RED letter - scary!!!! It is run by men and off course they want to keep it going as they want a job that pays very good money no doubt - let's not forget the number of child sex abusers they employed and covered up!!! I cannot stand them - it's out dated - why don't they want it to move to subscription service - ah - because people won't sign up - they offer very little on TV - the odd decent drama or documentary - it's just not worth £16 per month!!!! They are bullying people and wasting ££££ on the letters they send - they cannot and will not let it go and will work to keep it going - I take great delight in not paying them and despite all 40 plus threatening letters I've had, they have never knocked on my door - their manipulation has been going on for a long time - remember "the detector vans" how the used "fear" to get people to buy on. I do not respect them - bunch of male dominated bullies!!!

Yes and indeed received one today that went straight in the recycling.

After 25+ years of paying the fee i decided to stop.
I don't use iplayer -in case i get caught ! but do watch the odd live programme very rarely bbc though.
I object to the same old same old bbc programmes and presenters on extremely high wages, they don't provide me with anything that i find entertaining.
If other channels can fund themselves then so should bbc, as a pp said why should i pay them to watch other channels that don't charge me ?
There is so much out there that you can subscribe to there is no need to pay this outdated fee.

I must be different to everyone else then - I don't find letters scary. They have no weight, I thought everyone knew that.

No, I don't care if Sky lobby the government. But it's a false analogy because the BBC is the state broadcaster, Sky isn't. So the BBC does have some standing.

Also, I didn't think this thread was about something that hasn't happened (TV licence being added to utility bills, or something) but about the current situation.

Whether or not the BBC is the "State" broadcaster is wholly irrelevant.

The point being made is that surely you can grasp that being forced to foot the bill for something you do not use at all, in your case, Sky TV and Coffee, doesn't rest well with most people.

Is there anything else that you'd be perfectly happy to foot the bill for despite not using? My Council Tax charges perhaps?

I foot the bill for a fuck ton of stuff I don't use, as does everyone. Schools, for a start. Libraries. Maternity services. Parks. HS2. Wembley stadium. The list is actually probably endless to be honest.

I get a 25% discount on my council tax. Loads of other people pay 100% but might have ten people in their house. At a minimum the next number is two, so why don't I get a 50% discount?

But, that's just how taxes work, isn't it. It's for the state to decide how to distribute them. It's not for your personal benefit or preference.

So, as I said, the analogy doesn't work.

And it's not irrelevant to ME that the BBC is the state broadcaster, it's an important point. You're welcome to your opinion, but the fact you've decided it's irrelevant does not make it so.

The TV Licence is not a "tax". It is not collected by Government then spent on a public service.

It's collected by the BBC directly by their own vehicle, Capita

Normal, reasonable people have no issues whatsoever with tax being collected to pay for public services they do not personally use, but which still benefit them indirectly, schools, and suchlike, because they accept it's a worthwhile and necessary investment which has benefits for their communities.

The BBC is in no way comparable, because it's main M.O. is to produce content for the purpose of leisure and entertainment, and it's also not a monopoly in the way most public services are.

If you desperately want Televisual output to consume, there are plenty of sources of that other than the BBC. There are few alternatives to most public services, so people accept that as part of the contract with the State they'll pay tax and receive a service in return. There is no need for such an arrangement with regard to a broadcaster, because most people can cope perfectly comfortably without such a thing in the first place, which is why there is no argument for a compulsory tax to fund an entirely non-essential service, one that millions of people in the UK are already managing perfectly well without and have long since moved on from.

It's not remotely similar to the NHS, or Education for example, where people absolutely do have a need for healthcare and do have a need for children to be educated, because the "alternatives" to those are cost prohibitive for most people. It's precisely the opposite with the BBC, in that it's the Licence Fee which is exorbitant compared to some of the alternatives, and given that it is an entirely elective non-vital service, the notion of being "taxed" in order to fund it instead, whether you use it or not, is utterly indefensible.

So yes, the fact the BBC is the State broadcaster is completely and utterly irrelevant, and the fact you personally are happy to fund it in no way justifies foisting that tax on people who have absolutely no need of a "State" broadcaster, do not use it, would not miss it, and also have plenty of other more affordable options which do the same thing or better.

The BBC needs to start operating in the real world, and the fact it references "competitors" itself but refuses point-blank to entertain the notion of "competing", instead continually relying on preferential treatment by government, is a farcical state of affairs which needs brought to an end.

We pay TV licence
Can't remember last time we watched BBC.
Quality programming 🤣🤣🤣
Mrs Browns boys for example.

I pay the license fee and I don’t think I’ve watched a live BBC programme in 25 years.

The BbC is like the NHS. A huge behemoth - so when people glibly say it must do this simple fix or that it’s not going to work.

I don’t watch much live tv but I listen to the radio much of the day - the radio is irreplaceable imv. Many of the progs are available as podcasts.
I think the news should be maintained free to air , radio a separate lower subscription. And live tv a choice to subscribe or not - then there is all the back catalogue - I watch lots of old blackadder clips, would I lie to you clips on fb - are the BBC paid for these?
Cut the number of channels might help. But progs like The Other Bennet Sister are a joy to watch.

Did no one watch the football on BBC

We watch live old fashioned through an aerial TV quite a lot when we go away in the caravan, the wifi and phone signal is rubbish on a lot of sites so old fashioned Freeview is the only choice apart from some stuff I download to the iPad before we go so between that and having SkyQ we have to have a licence anyway even if we never watched BBC.

You keep changing your argument, which basically shows you don't have one.

I never said the licence was a tax. But you suggesting I would have to pay it (which is not currently the case) would make it comparable to tax. Hence I answered your (I now realise, disingenuous) question about paying fur things you don't use.

But, whatever. You do you.

I like the BBC, I'm more than happy to keep funding it.

Turning it into a tax in all but name is exactly what Birt is lobbying for. If you use any form of not just live but streamed entertainment you will have to pay the tax.
At that point pretending its anything other than a tax is pointless.

PP was incorrect though to state that Capita is part of the BBC - its a third party service provider which works mostly in the public sector and whose quality of service is somewhat variable. It is still a fee collector for the public sector and the monthly charge for the BBC is higher than any of the regular streaming services.
I still pay it, I have generally believed in public sector broadcast services. but I get very little back for the money compared to subscription streamers or ad supported channels. That wasn’t the case 20 years ago. Its interesting to me that NPR in the US (where subscription is optional) has suffered many of the problems of the Beeb in recent years and there as here subscribers have voted with their feet. There, as here, the response has been to blame the audience rather than look at the problems with the content or how to diversify/monetise content.

You keep changing your argument, which basically shows you don't have one

Absolute nonsense.

I like the BBC, I'm more than happy to keep funding it

Cool, lobby them to make it a subscription service then so the rest of us don't have to pay for something we don't use, don't need, don't want, don't benefit from, and wouldn't miss one iota.