Support NeoGAF

[Stallion Dan]

I don't agree. No one forces you to pay for Sky. Just because you pay one provider to gain access to extra channels doesn't negate the need to pay for the license.

If I'm paying Sky to watch their content on their system using their satellite....why do I need pay someone else for anything?

And here is a hilarious thing, when you buy a TV nowdays in a store they want your address to check if you got a TV license, if you don't they won't sell you it.

Like you're a criminal, because watching shit like Easteneders and Corrie must be the only reason to buy a TV.

 

[kharma45]

oh and why is that, because the government says so? How often is the british government right... It is extremely sad that you can go to prison for not paying for it, even worse when people like yourself defend it.

It is an illegal tax.

Why pay any taxes then?

If I'm paying Sky to watch their content on their system using their satellite....why do I need pay someone else for anything?

And here is a hilarious thing, when you buy a TV nowdays in a store they want your address to check if you got a TV license, if you don't they won't sell you it.

Like you're a criminal, because watching shit like Easteneders and Corrie must be the only reason to buy a TV.

Because it's a tax on owning equipment and using it to receive or record live television broadcasts, regardless of source.

 

[Mindwipe]

It is an illegal tax.

It is, rather by definition, not an illegal tax.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

People get annoyed about about the license fee as when you move house, trying to get refunds on quarters where you didn't own a TV or weren't living in a property is like trying to get blood from a stone. Their initial position in any communication is that everyone is a criminal, and and you basically have to somehow prove a negative which is practically impossible. I once sent them a picture of every empty room in my stripped empty house, accompanied by a dated newspaper, an electricity and water bill with usage showing that nobody was living in an address, plus a postal redirection form comfirming that I was having my post sent to my new home, and they still refused to give me the benefit of the doubt when I didn't want to continue with a license at the new property because my wife (who was happy to give them her account number) already had one. They still owe me about £120 after three house moves.

Just pay by direct debit, and then cancel it when you move.

They'll chase you for money, but you'll have moved.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

This was obviously coming. It always made me laugh in TV license debate threads when someone would go "I don't have to pay because I only watch BBC shows on iplayer after they have aired". It was so blatantly a loophole that was going to get closed.

Now I firmly believe if you watch BBC content you should PAY for that content whether it is aired live or 20 bloody years later. However I also firmly believe if you do NOT watch BBC content then you should not have to give that corrupt corporation a single fucking penny.

The BBC does not meet my needs, it does not produce any content I want to consume. I used their iplayer once a few years ago thought it was utter shite and never went back. I cannot stand their news broadcasting, I loathe and detest sport so their sport broadcasting does nothing for me. I would not shed a bloody tear if the BBC disappeared into a hole tomorrow and was never seen or heard from again.

Having said that I am forced to pay £125 a year because I still want to have access to programming from other channels aside from the BBC. What I would like to see is a low tier license fee to cover people that do not consume BBC content but still wish to access other TV channels.

The BBC is nothing but an extortion racket and whilst I hate the Tories with a passion I can get behind anything they do that leads to the death of the BBC.

 

[mrklaw]

Eh?

I enjoyed the Beats 1 thread that went up with everyone being amazed at the quality of music. For us that is just Radio one

 

[funkypie]

Why pay any taxes then?


.

thank you for not even making a point.

last time I checked we lived in a capitalist country. You offer products and services. BBC offers a service that I do not watch or care for, so I why should I pay for it.

 

[kharma45]

thank you for not even making a point.

last time I checked we lived in a capitalist country. You offer products and services. BBC offers a service that I do not watch or care for, so I why should I pay for it.

It's not a tax mandated by the BBC, only collected by them to give to government.

 

[funkypie]

It's not a tax mandated by the BBC, only collected by them to give to government.

you still not answer my question, instead just offered smart arse replies.

 

[kharma45]

you still not answer my question, instead just offered smart arse replies.

Your question being the fact that you don't want to watch the BBC and are forced to pay for it? So? There are many taxes we pay that fund things I don't support or use. The law is the law, if you want to watch or record live TV you need one.

 

[funkypie]

Your question being the fact that you don't want to watch the BBC and are forced to pay for it? So? There are many taxes we pay that fund things I don't support or use. The law is the law, if you want to watch or record live TV you need one.

Nah, I will continue to put the letters in the bin.

 

[kharma45]

Nah, I will continue to put the letters in the bin.

.

thank you for not even making a point

 

[eldudebro]

And here is a hilarious thing, when you buy a TV nowdays in a store they want your address to check if you got a TV license, if you don't they won't sell you it.

This is absolutely not true.

Up until a year or so ago when you went to buy a TV the seller had to pass on the buyers details to TVL, however this is no longer the case.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

Your question being the fact that you don't want to watch the BBC and are forced to pay for it? So? There are many taxes we pay that fund things I don't support or use. The law is the law, if you want to watch or record live TV you need one.

Yes we all have to pay taxes for services, even some services we do not like because they help society function. I am not a big fan of the police service (one step up from bloody criminals). However I appreciate we need a police service for society to operate. I am not a mega huge fan of the armed forces, but I accept that for the safety and security of society we need an armed forces. I have never used the fire service in my life and hope to god I never have to use that service, but I am happy to pay taxes towards that service so that should I ever need it it will be there for me.

The BBC on the other hand I fail to see any thing it "adds" to society. I fail to see how Eastenders is a necessary part of the way a society functions, especially when you can see the same shit on ITV but with a Manchester accent. I am all for a low cost TV licence to ensure thebroadcast infrastructure is maintained and improved (both the airwaves and internet). However I firmly believe that BBC content should be an option paid extra on the TV licence. If you don't want to pay for BBC content then you shouldn't have too (but then you shouldn't be able to watch it either).

 

[Ghost]

thank you for not even making a point.

last time I checked we lived in a capitalist country. You offer products and services. BBC offers a service that I do not watch or care for, so I why should I pay for it.

Public broadcasting is an important service, whether you use it or not. The BBC provides a vital set of services to many people in disseminating information to the public with no corporate or government agenda, there's just no way a lot of the programming the BBC produces (Arts, News, Childrens, Local) could be produced to the same standard in the private sector.

I would definitely say that there are a lot of issues with how the BBC spends its money, but that doesn't totally negate the need for it.

 

[kharma45]

Yes we all have to pay taxes for services, even some services we do not like because they help society function. I am not a big fan of the police service (one step up from bloody criminals). However I appreciate we need a police service for society to operate. I am not a mega huge fan of the armed forces, but I accept that for the safety and security of society we need an armed forces. I have never used the fire service in my life and hope to god I never have to use that service, but I am happy to pay taxes towards that service so that should I ever need it it will be there for me.

The BBC on the other hand I fail to see any thing it "adds" to society. I fail to see how Eastenders is a necessary part of the way a society functions, especially when you can see the same shit on ITV but with a Manchester accent. I am all for a low cost TV licence to ensure thebroadcast infrastructure is maintained and improved (both the airwaves and internet). However I firmly believe that BBC content should be an option paid extra on the TV licence. If you don't want to pay for BBC content then you shouldn't have too (but then you shouldn't be able to watch it either).

Ghost has already articulated my reply

Public broadcasting is an important service, whether you use it or not. The BBC provides a vital set of services to many people in disseminating information to the public with no corporate or government agenda, there's just no way a lot of the programming the BBC produces (Arts, News, Childrens, Local) could be produced to the same standard in the private sector.

I would definitely say that there are a lot of issues with how the BBC spends its money, but that doesn't totally negate the need for it.

 

[CharmingCharlie]

Ghost has already articulated my reply

You know if the BBC excels so much at the News, Art, Childrens TV, and stuff like "strictly come dancing whilst baking a cake and building a shed for charity hosted by Nick Knowles" then people will happily PAY for it. I personally do not believe that the quality the BBC brings to these areas is enough to warrant a 4 billion pound tax on the ordinary person.

I do not expect people to subsidise my entertainment. I do not consider my entertainment to be "vital to society". So I don't see why I should pay for shit like Eastenders. I am NOT against a TV licence, I believe we need a license to cover the cost of the broadcasting infrastructure. I am against that license being using to gravy boat the BBC. If they are as good as people say they are then they can stand on their own two feet without having to resort to extortion to get their money.

 

[nib95]

Well, I pay my licensing fee. That ought to be plenty.

 

[mrklaw]

Yes we all have to pay taxes for services, even some services we do not like because they help society function. I am not a big fan of the police service (one step up from bloody criminals). However I appreciate we need a police service for society to operate. I am not a mega huge fan of the armed forces, but I accept that for the safety and security of society we need an armed forces. I have never used the fire service in my life and hope to god I never have to use that service, but I am happy to pay taxes towards that service so that should I ever need it it will be there for me.

The BBC on the other hand I fail to see any thing it "adds" to society. I fail to see how Eastenders is a necessary part of the way a society functions, especially when you can see the same shit on ITV but with a Manchester accent. I am all for a low cost TV licence to ensure thebroadcast infrastructure is maintained and improved (both the airwaves and internet). However I firmly believe that BBC content should be an option paid extra on the TV licence. If you don't want to pay for BBC content then you shouldn't have too (but then you shouldn't be able to watch it either).

I assume it comes under culture and the arts. The high quality output of the BBC is both informative and can help Britain's image abroad. I'd be perfectly happy if they stopped pandering to the lowest common denominator with all the daytime shit, but I'm not against them producing entertaining programs as well as informative.

Thinking about it - they should shut down at midnight until 6am like they used to in the old days, and sublet their channel space to Babestation. That'd help keep their costs down.

 

[mclem]

Public broadcasting is an important service, whether you use it or not. The BBC provides a vital set of services to many people in disseminating information to the public with no corporate or government agenda, there's just no way a lot of the programming the BBC produces (Arts, News, Childrens, Local) could be produced to the same standard in the private sector.

I would definitely say that there are a lot of issues with how the BBC spends its money, but that doesn't totally negate the need for it.

As a reasonable example: I have absolutely no need nor desire to listen to the BBC Asian Network; it's not for me. That's fine. But I recognise that it's important that such a broadcast channel exists, and I don't see any commercial providers stepping up to fill that niche.

 

[funkypie]

Ghost has already articulated my reply

LOL. Why couldn't you offer that replay on the previous page, why did you need to wait for someone else.

And ghost does indeed make a point, but he/she is wrong.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

As a reasonable example: I have absolutely no need nor desire to listen to the BBC Asian Network; it's not for me. That's fine. But I recognise that it's important that such a broadcast channel exists, and I don't see any commercial providers stepping up to fill that niche.

Eh? There's loads of commercial Asian radio stations. http://www.radiofeeds.co.uk/query.asp?genre=Asian

 

[mrklaw]

LOL. Why couldn't you offer that replay on the previous page, why did you need to wait for someone else.

And ghost does indeed make a point, but he/she is wrong.

by 'wrong' you mean you disagree?

As a reasonable example: I have absolutely no need nor desire to listen to the BBC Asian Network; it's not for me. That's fine. But I recognise that it's important that such a broadcast channel exists, and I don't see any commercial providers stepping up to fill that niche.

oh man, Punjabi Hit Squad on a Saturday evening is fantastic.

 

[Frank Serpico]

Damn this Holding On song is hot

 

[mclem]

Eh? There's loads of commercial Asian radio stations. http://www.radiofeeds.co.uk/query.asp?genre=Asian

Local, but not countrywide. Although I guess there's less demand outside the Midlands and London?

 

[| Praxis |]

LOL. Why couldn't you offer that replay on the previous page, why did you need to wait for someone else.

And ghost does indeed make a point, but he/she is wrong.

After reading your previous posts, you seem really hung up over Eastenders, and I can definitely relate with that. I also feel like shit knowing my money goes to its creation, but I just see it as a necessary evil to receive other shows that simply wouldn't get made anywhere else.

You have the recent few series by Michael Moseley, all about the darker side of medicine and the hardships that had to be endured to reach the point we are at now. David Attenborough films that are loved around the world and so much better than the competition, it may as well not exist. Louis Theroux, Horizon, which is nowhere near as good as it used to be, but probably still better than anything else on in the week, the Mary Beard show on Rome and most recently the series of documentaries about Napoleon.

These are all worth the license fee, and there's probably a lot more I haven't mentioned.

 

[CyclopsRock]

If public broadcasting is considered important for society, whether you use it or not, that's an argument for it coming out of central tax funding like almost everything else. Having the TV License is a bizarro middle ground which, to me, doesn't make sense today. I feel like I say this in every thread about the BBC (because I do) but IMO they should be stripped right back and only provide programming that won't exist elsewhere because it's not commercially viable. I'd rather they made a documentary about some mad, niche subject only 100 people care about than spending millions getting the rights to show Formula 1 when ITV or Eurosport or whoever will do it if the BBC don't - I fail to see how anyone benefits when the BBC uses its publically-financed funding to produce telly that makes other channels harder to exist with little or no tangible benefit to the viewer. Failing that, make it subscription based.

 

[King Gilga]

Anyone who evades the license fee is a hero in my book.