[UK] TV License Needed?

[BGM]

TV License lol

they might as well license the right to breath O2

at least we have freedom to TV get and watching it

seriously why ?? driving a car , plane ,owning gun etc make a sense to req a license

*sigh* HOW MANY TIMES!

It's not actually a license per say, its just the name... the 'tv license' is just a funding method, in exactly the same way that advertising is...

call it a subscription, albeit a forced one, but a subscription none the less

I don't pay a single cent for a TV subscription (cable/satellite), and advertising/commercials are great for when you need to grab some food or use the restroom :p

adverts really **** me off, atleast on the uk channels that do have adverts its not every 5mins!

[WelshBluebird]

god, there's so much mis-information in this thread.

1 - If you intend to watch Live TV, no matter how, you should have a licence.

2 - even if you won't be watching bbc channels (so if your watching ITV all the time), you still need one.

3 - There's is an exception which states that you can be covered by your parent's licence if the device your using is battery powered.

4 - You don't need one for iPlayer, 4OD etc. But if your watching live streams on the bbc website, then if your watching it on a desktop (or a mains powered laptop), you should have one.

5 - Re the whole locks thing. Locks have nothing to do with it. If you rent the house as a group or people, you only need one licence. If you rent your rooms separately, you need a licence each.

6 - You don't need one for listening to the radio.

7 - If you have a TV, but just use if for games, DVD's etc, you do not need a licence.

However, the chances you being caught in university halls are pretty slim. Its still pretty easy to get away with in a rented house, as they actually have to have evidence and proof that your watching TV. Even if you have a tuner, if you don't use it to watch or record TV, they can't do anything.

Also, for people in halls of residence where you won't be there all year, wait until october to buy your licence if you get one. That way, when you leave in June of the following year, you can claim back a quarter of the cost of the licence (as you didn't need it for a full quarter of the year).

[Lt-DavidW]

1.) The price is too high, ?120 per year!, and the bbc spend half of it on rubbish!(ie moving their HQ to Salford)

Despite the expansion of the BBC onto the internet, and the creation of new digital channels, the price increases over the years have been relatively minor, especially when considering inflation. The move from Television Centre to Salford was actually a measure tocut> costs.

2.) They charge students the full amount. Should be free, at least discounted, as us students don't have much money, or watch much tv.

Some would argue that students spend the most time watching television. A discount for students would mean that people like me would have to pay the deficit on your behalf.

3.) The money grabbing b******s, still charge the blind, ?70 a year!!.

The license fee covers Radio as well as Television. The BBC also offers free audio descriptions alongside their television broadcasts.

4.) The Tv Licensing company are bullys, using far too aggressive letters/threats(eg We will pay a visit!!, but in fact they need a warrant to enter your house.)

The BBC Trust[/b]b> would like to hear from you.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

Re the whole locks thing. Locks have nothing to do with it. If you rent the house as a group or people, you only need one licence. If you rent your rooms separately, you need a licence each.

And you totally missunderstand!

The locks has nothing to do with licenses. You are right. Locks define the type of rental. And thus, the license if addected.

Get it?

[+DonC Subscriber²]

I won't dispute that the BBC have created a lot of great content over the years, and if you consume their content that the ?140 is money well spent. And after being used to the BBC, watching a channel with advertisements is really annoying!

But what made me furiously angry with the BBC was that they might not show third party advertisements, but they stilladvertise> their own services and the Radio Times magazine.

But what made my blood BOIL when I used to watch TV, was the number of advertisements the BBC showed saying how it was illegal to watch TV without a licence. The advertisements were misleading and used language to imply that simply owning a TV regardless was enough to require a licence.

[former1]

Sorry but eastenders isn't worth 140 quid a year :p they should be paying me!

[wst50]

...its news channel unbias.

The BBC has some of the most biased English news programmes available. Sky News is better. And if it dealt with local things, Al Jazeera would be the best to watch, they're highly objective.

[Lt-DavidW]

The BBC has some of the most biased English news programmes available. Sky News is better.

Are you seriously telling me that the BBC is more bias than Sky News, which is by the same people behind FOX News, The Sun, and News of the World?

You're pulling my leg... right? :blink:

[Kushan]

Sorry but eastenders isn't worth 140 quid a year :p they should be paying me!

Yeah but Top Gear is!

[beardedwonder]

The BBC has some of the most biased English news programmes available. Sky News is better. And if it dealt with local things, Al Jazeera would be the best to watch, they're highly objective.

Every UK news channel is bound by law to be impartial. Editorialising is not allowed like in the US. This is reserved (in the UK) to newspapers. The TV News channels are bound by law. So saying this only proves one thing, you're seeking out imbalance. And to say that BBC News is more biased than Sky News is laughable, after all Murdoch is hassleing OFCOM to change the law so it would allow 'opinion' channels a la 'Fox "News"'. We've already seen what his influence can do with the 'papers do we really want this translated to TV?

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Keep in mind that 1) The fee doesn't just go to the BBC. The vast majority, yes but not all. 2) There are plans to share the License Fee with other broadcasters for specific public-service broadcasts.

The BBC is a great institution, if you think of it as only "crap I don't watch" then you're missing the point completely.

It forces the commercial stations to up their game - they have to compete with the BBC which means they have to keep quality (relatively) high or people won't watch (this they won't get the ad monies).

The BBC also has a big R&D department, the iPlayer is a brilliant service, yeah 4OD exists but it's nowhere near as good. We also now have the Dirac codec, free of patents which is something which wouldn't ever happen with a commercial broadcaster. Lots of other behind-the-scenes tech also comes from the BBC's R&D dept.