Funny site on UK/BBC/TV Licensing fee

**danzig** · February 02, 2007, 08:25 PM

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/

Stumbled across that on another site, wouldn't be surprised if its been posted but cant recall it. Anyway, its one person claiming he doesn't watch tv anymore and hence refusal to pay his tv licensing fee and all the mail spam he gets in an attempt to get the money. Ill admit as an american the thought of a 'tv license' is completely alien to me least of all if you are someone who doesnt watch tv and then have to somehow prove you dont?

I love the domain registration by the BBC. Anyone from the UK a question, its just the BBC that draws from these funds because they are considered a 'state' broadcaster?

**KingOfTheIsles** · February 02, 2007, 08:53 PM

Yep, I just got a "warning" letter today, despite the fact that I don't own a TV in my uni residence. Personally, I can do without the BBC's strong-arming about license fees, it's something I'm used to, but the warning letter was still aggravating. They're welcome to come visit, in any case.

To the second question, yes, it is only the BBC that uses license fees. However I'm not sure whether you must pay the license, even if you don't watch the BBC. The other channels survive on advertising revenue.

**LoZz** · February 03, 2007, 03:44 AM

if you own a tv then you need to pay a license fee, how stupid is that? it should only be payed if you watch the bbc.

**Tom Paine** · February 03, 2007, 03:48 AM

Which can be told how? Just a question.
Furthermore, it should then be extended to radio, in that case; because really, that's what more people use the BBC for, I believe. But there's no radio license fee is there.

**danzig** · February 03, 2007, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

Which can be told how? Just a question.
Furthermore, it should then be extended to radio, in that case; because really, that's what more people use the BBC for, I believe. But there's no radio license fee is there.

It cant unless going to spend a ton of money to equip every TV in UK with some type of monitoring device which obviously wouldnt be feasible so why should someone who doesn't own a tv be harassed to pay a fee? Dunno its just totally bizarre concept having to pay for something you may not even use btw what about satellite/cable etc? It would seem out of whack to have to put up money for pay tv in addition to paying the BBC especially since such service dilutes the need for something like the BBC. Extended to radio? How about just making the BBC swim or sink on its own?

**Tom Paine** · February 03, 2007, 05:08 AM

Because the only way it takes in money is through the license fee, being unique in not having advertising and not charging to watch it beyond the licence fee whereas cable charges for cable and for the channels. The BBC is unique and its uniqueness is the reason for the licence fee; and its the best news service and th best media outlet this country has, as far as I am concerned, and well worth the licence fee (only charged to those with a TV connected to an aerial or other method of taking in signals, theoretically; charging anyone else is just bad bureaucracy)

**danzig** · February 03, 2007, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

Because the only way it takes in money is through the license fee, being unique in not having advertising and not charging to watch it beyond the licence fee whereas cable charges for cable and for the channels. The BBC is unique and its uniqueness is the reason for the licence fee; and its the best news service and th best media outlet this country has, as far as I am concerned, and well worth the licence fee (only charged to those with a TV connected to an aerial or other method of taking in signals, theoretically; charging anyone else is just bad bureaucracy)

I guess but obviously it doesnt work for everyone hence the guy in the link I posted, with no ability to opt out of it to me it seems entirely unfair. What if you dont think the BBC news service is good but simply having a tv requires you to pay/support it? Im not knocking it obviously it works for most Brits and if it works...good for you guys but I just find it puzzling so many people are willing to subsidize a tv network. Just for example I have BBC America channel here thru my cable service, the programs are being financed by YOU but yet I can view them and Im not directly paying for them as they are part of my basic cable service fee. I would hope however full BBC programing is better then what it shown here...I would hate to think you guys are paying a license fee and the best you are getting out of it is Footballer Wives....

**Lusted** · February 03, 2007, 06:04 AM

I would hate to think you guys are paying a license fee and the best you are getting out of it is Footballer Wives....

Thats an ITV program, never been shown on the BBC here.

The problem is any TV that can receive signal through a aerial/cable/digibox can receive BBC channels. The other channels are paid for by advertising, the BBC is not.

**danzig** · February 03, 2007, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Lusted

Thats an ITV program, never been shown on the BBC here.

Ah ok good cause frankly Id riot if I were you guys and paying for that

The problem is any TV that can receive signal through a aerial/cable/digibox can receive BBC channels. The other channels are paid for by advertising, the BBC is not.

I know which is my point of it being unfair as you have no choice in the matter. Oh well its obviously if it isnt broke dont fix it sort of thing I just found the it amusing the guy getting all those letters because I can imagine if something like this was attempted in the US like having to pay for Fox Network! What happens ultimately if you refuse to pay it? Say they came to your house (which is another thing that is mind boggling) and said yep you have a tv hooked up and you gotta pay and you still refuse?

Seize it from his wages/bank account?

**Freddie** · February 03, 2007, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by danzig

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/

Stumbled across that on another site, wouldn't be surprised if its been posted but cant recall it. Anyway, its one person claiming he doesn't watch tv anymore and hence refusal to pay his tv licensing fee and all the mail spam he gets in an attempt to get the money. Ill admit as an american the thought of a 'tv license' is completely alien to me least of all if you are someone who doesnt watch tv and then have to somehow prove you dont?

I love the domain registration by the BBC. Anyone from the UK a question, its just the BBC that draws from these funds because they are considered a 'state' broadcaster?

It's like watching a clawless and toothless lion trying to take down a wild boar.

**Tom Paine** · February 03, 2007, 06:57 AM

Actually, fines which do exactly that, yes, if I remember rightly. Pretty simple really.

**the Black Prince** · February 03, 2007, 08:25 AM

i recieved an official warning the other day for living at an unlicensed address.

the letter asks me to prevent further letters and a court appearence by purchasing a TV licence.

i don't have a TV, i've never had one at Uni.
I refuse to pay a national rate phone number to call up and tell them i don't have one, i refuse to have to do ANYTHING to prove my innocence, since i'm innocent till proven guilty. I actually look quite forward to getting a court summons, and telling the TVLA, in front of magistrates and on record that the reason i don't have a TV licence is because i don't have a TV, or any TV recieving equipment. i'd then follow that up with a little rant about the Rule of Law, innocent till proven guilty, and a reference to the communications act 2003 that makes it unlawful to have unlicenced TV recieving equipment, and not to live at unlicenced address.

*rolls eyes*

**LoZz** · February 04, 2007, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by the Black Prince

i recieved an official warning the other day for living at an unlicensed address.

the letter asks me to prevent further letters and a court appearence by purchasing a TV licence.

i don't have a TV, i've never had one at Uni.
I refuse to pay a national rate phone number to call up and tell them i don't have one, i refuse to have to do ANYTHING to prove my innocence, since i'm innocent till proven guilty. I actually look quite forward to getting a court summons, and telling the TVLA, in front of magistrates and on record that the reason i don't have a TV licence is because i don't have a TV, or any TV recieving equipment. i'd then follow that up with a little rant about the Rule of Law, innocent till proven guilty, and a reference to the communications act 2003 that makes it unlawful to have unlicenced TV recieving equipment, and not to live at unlicenced address.

*rolls eyes*

yer you tell um!

**Erik** · February 04, 2007, 09:01 AM

From what I understand this guy used to have a license, but rather than calling the BBC to cancel his license he simply decided to stop payment.

In that case I can understand that the BBC believes he either forgot to pay, or he refuses to pay.
In one of the letters it states that if he doesn't own a TV he should call.
He does own a TV to watch tapes, but he could have called the same phone number to explain that he doesn't watch broadcast television anymore, and the letters should have stopped right there.

In tBP's case the BBC is clearly in the wrong.
They could have send him a letter asking him if he, by any chance, happened to own a TV and watched BBC, but they had no right to accuse him of fraud without any evidence.

PS: we had a similar system in the Netherlands, but fraud was so rampant and without any means to check it they simply abandoned the system.
Now public television is simply payed for trough taxes, which means people who never watch TV still have to pay for it trough their taxes, but then there are hundreds of other public services that I don't use and still pay for trough my taxes.

**the Black Prince** · February 04, 2007, 09:17 AM

We have a statutory responsibility to ensure that every
address where a television licence is required is
correctly licensed. We do this by writing to people to
ask about their use or otherwise of television.

the letters i recieved didn't ask about my lack or use of television, but merely about the fact that my address was unlicenced and therefore needed a licence

For consistency TV Licensing does not act selectively
in which addresses are to be visited and therefore aims
to visit all no set claims and black and white licensed
premises.

evidence would suggest that this year, my campus is being specifically targeted. the reference code on my letter is STU/01/07/E
at a guess, Student, 01/07, England.
selective targeting? i wonder...

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/index.jsp

**lewis16666** · February 14, 2007, 07:11 PM

In the UK the BBC is a state sponsored network of first class quality. It is paid for by a general taxation called the licence fee.

If you have any type of receiving equipment, such as a computer monitor OR a radio receiver you must pay the licence because these things can receive the BBC's services with little modification. That's why the letters are demanding because its virtually impossible to exist in the modern world without such equipment.

But consider!!

The BBC, unfortunately, like the NHS it is under attack by the very party that is supposed to protect it. The notion is that like SKY you should only pay for what you subscribe to. Or pay to drive only on the roads you Chose to use as in toal fees. But what of those people who dont have enough money??? Who have to cut corners each month despite having worked all their lives but get **** wages. That choice becomes a load of BOLLOCKS.

Like in America, where you have the choice of having any medical treatment you want at any hospital of your Choice as long as you have the money to pay or to have bought medical insurance. No money no treatment **** off!!

So if we dident have the TV licence, literally thousands of debt ridden homes in the UK would opt to do without a telly and frankly for the 5th richest country on the planet this is unacceptable and should lead to the lamp posts being decorated by hanging politicians.