Should have worded it better. I barely watch any TV. And BBC even less so.
If everyone else has to pay it then I will too. Just think the " law " needs to be re evaluated now that people have Sky and Virgin to pay too !
There’s no correlation between them. They are completely separate.
You don’t have to pay if you don’t watch BBC or use BBC services. If you do use those things, you have to pay it.
How exactly do they reinforce that ?
With random visits from enforcement officers who come and inspect your setup and ask you questions.
All of this is covered in the topic linked to you earlier.
1 Like
You’d need a license to watch Sky though. Or anything on live TV basically.
4 Likes
Chose to pay it quarterly, lessens the blow a bit 
This isn’t true - which is why I detest the licensing. If it was a fee for the BBC it’d be easier to understand.
The fee needs to be paid if you watch ANY live TV whether broadcast in the UK or internationally, through any device. If you don’t do that, but you use iPlayer, you need to pay.
Only exceptions are for people who exclusively use non-BBC catch up services and don’t watch TV.
I wish it would disappear, the BBC can find revenue from other sources. The BBC should stay around but they have international channels which advertise and they have their new BritBox service charging British people instead of providing it through iPlayer. They’re not making many good moves imo.
1 Like
I didn’t realise that!
1 Like
Do you need to buy a TV license now? 
Ha, no I’ve always had one, fairly really as I do watch BBC.
But I didn’t realise I would need one to watch the football on Sky! That’s a bit of a con!
1 Like
I think that, in the same way that democracy is by far the worst way to govern a country, apart from all the other ways, the TV licence is by far the worst way to fund the BBC, apart from all the others.
It’s an anachronism, but it’s our anachronism, I guess.
4 Likes
That’s where I can understand the other side of the argument.
However I find most people watch a little bit of the BBC. Or use their app. Or listen to the radio. Or use their website. So they are getting BBC services even though they claim they “don’t use the BBC”.
I know many people who refuse to pay a licence yet seem to know what happens in popular BBC programmes and I hear the BBC news app jingle on their phones… just sayin’
2 Likes
I fall into this bracket, largely down to me wanting access to other live TV channels so I have to pay the fee.
But if I could watch live TV freely and just pay for acces to BBC content (as I think should be the case), I don’t think my low level BBC use would justify the cost.
If I watched Netflix as little as I watch BBC then I’d cancel the subscription in a heart beat, or I’d be selective on how long I subscribe to it at a time. Same applies to any service provider, and the same should apply to the BBC.
Or use a TV aerial.
It would be difficult in reality to manage that but I can see a case for having a login to access BBC services you pay monthly for.
But at the end of the day I view the BBC services differently to other entertainment services in that it’s about paying in for content to be made that I don’t necessarily watch but some need. It’s difficult to explain but I see the BBC as a national service, and a decent global service that might be one of the few remaining sources of good soft power we have.
I realise that’s a niche and increasingly unpopular view but yeah, it’s not just about what I personally watch.
4 Likes
I agree with what you’re saying here and I think that’s where the content and license fee should be split up.There’s a difference between providing a service to the benefit of the country, and entertainment.
I see a value in public libraries but that doesn’t mean that I think there should be a blanket fee in order to make use of any bookstore.
Perhaps services and entertainment sides of the BBC should be split up? One that’s publicly funded (e.g. news and education) and the other funded by the end users who subscribe (bargain hunt and Perfect Earth).
BritBox is a joint venture with ITV, so they won’t be getting all the money. It’s unlikely this income stream would be a suitable replacement for the licence fee.
This is an issue that can be interpreted so broadly though. It’s only considered live tv, if it’s broadcast on TV. One could argue watching the Eurovision live stream on YouTube is not watching live TV, because YouTube is not a tv channel, nor is that stream of Eurovision broadcast on TV.
Second, IP streaming has a significant delay compared to broadcast TV, often by 2 to 5 minutes, so one may argue due to that nature, the content isn’t live.
I’m unsure if any of these arguments have been tested in court though.
I profoundly disagree with the tv license and it’s precisely why I don’t watch any BBC content or subscribe to any broadcast tv services anymore. I don’t even have freeview or freesat.
The way it’s enforced is disgusting, the fact it’s enforced, means I don’t like it. If they ditched it and made it an optional subscription, I’d probably quite happily subscribe from time to time for the Attenborough documentaries rather than buying them on iTunes.
1 Like
Personally I think the BBC is a great asset and one that we all use from time to time. As others have said I am happy that there is a library of content even though there is some I never access (CBBC, Radio 4, BBC Scotland etc). I like the idea of us all providing something to the wider community AND the benefit of having a media organisation with an obligation to include education in their remit.
Plus the money sometimes benefits other organisations:
2 Likes