When we had no choice as to the availability of TV channels the licence fee was used as a government induced indirect form of taxation, now, with third party suppliers of programming being available, Sky, NTL et.al. there is no longer a need to pay for BBC programming support (sic).
Perhaps users of independant suppliers should get together to have this form of taxation removed as we are at present being charged twice for the same access.
2007-01-17 23:07:05 · 15 answers · asked by rookethorne 6 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
I'll just add a bit more detail for those who need it -
The BBC channels are already included within the standard Sky subscription which is paid for on a monthly basis, in addition to the licence fee.
2007-01-18 00:00:12 · update #1
Neil J, The equipment I have to receive the programmes is supplied by Sky television as part of the contract and is paid for as such.
The 'television' itself is unable to receive these programmes without this equipment, so I am not relying on any RF based transmission.
Your choice is to receive a transmission via an aerial for which you are charged the licence fee, I still consider I am paying twice for the same service.
2007-01-18 07:50:40 · update #2
i ask that question here in N.Ireland to a TV licence inspector the answer i got was you can still watch BBC on sky therefore you must pay i agree its not right that we should pay twice
2007-01-17 23:23:36 · answer #1 · answered by fergie 11 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes the TV license is just for the BBC channels. But you have to have a TV licence regardless if you watch the BBC channels. (If you have a TV it is compulsory in the UK to have a TV license) However If you don't have a TV. & watch the programs on the BBCi player website on your computer or laptop (providing you are using a monitor which is not a TV as well and don't have an graphics card which you can attach an Ariel to) you don't need a license. (proving the programme you are watching isn't live) I think that if we must pay the license fee is should apply to all channels not just the BBC. & that is is simply ridiculous that you must have a TV license to own a TV even if you don't watch BBC channels. I do watch the BBC channels and no adverts splitting the programme I am watching is something I like about the BBC. I prefer the BBC to other channels such as channel 4 and five simply because there is so much variety. ITV in my opinion is the only other channel which comes close. I admit that the BBC is probably only better because of the license fee but I don't want the quality of the shows to degrade simply because people don't pay. But I think the £48 should be spread equally between channels or we shouldn't have to pay at all.
2016-05-24 02:52:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question, I've been wanting to know the answer to it since 1996, that was when I first got Sky. I think the government have a damn cheek charging the price they do for a TV licence, when it's only for the BBC, all the other channels are paid for by commercial advertising and I think the BBC should do the same and do away with the licence, but of course this greedy money making government won't do that!!
2007-01-21 15:21:19 · answer #3 · answered by Sierra One 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically the Licence fee is paid because you have a receiving device that shows TV. In years gone by you used to have to have a licence fee for radio reception as well.
The fact is that the government handed over the collection of this licence fee to the BBC a few years back, but limits how much they can raise.
Myself I don't mind paying the fee, the BBC programming is far superior to anything on satellite TV. The only programme I have seen on Sky that would make the BBC better is soccer AM, the rest is rubbish. That's why I refuse to have sky or NTL in my house.
2007-01-17 23:28:56 · answer #4 · answered by Corneilius 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You plonker, you have to have a licence to operate a television receiver.
This money is used to fund the BBC, you still need a licence if you operate such a receiver whatever you watch.
The great advantage is that we don't have to tolerate interminable adverts as you do with the sky, sometimes I am hard pushed to remember what is was I was watching anyway. Sky is crap too, it only does the news the rest are programmes produced by others.
Stop moaning about a measly £10 per month you tight ars*
2007-01-17 23:24:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The reason why it wouldn't get scrapped,is because of the lost revenue.
We would be taxed for something else,like having Sky or another cable provider.
2007-01-21 07:47:13 · answer #6 · answered by nicky dakiamadnat600bugmunchsqig 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i really be-grudge paying the hundred odd quid a year on the bloody thing and guess what i don't even watch the BBC and i subscribe to sky each month. i think that they should scrap t.v licences if you subscribe to sky, cable or any other digital network.
2007-01-17 23:27:23 · answer #7 · answered by yamyam2472000 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your bang on there it makes me sick thsi whole tv licence crap.
I wouldnt mind watching adverts on the bbc if it meant I didn't have to pay for it.
something should be done but I dont think anything will, as it is one of the best scams going for them.
Why is it just this country????
2007-01-17 23:13:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because its the state broadcaster.Its a bit like the council tax.and it gives very poor value in my opinion.
2007-01-17 23:23:55 · answer #9 · answered by ------------------ 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Thievish knaves suggest we have to finance the crap they purvey, and have it written that we are criminals if we object to stumping up the cash.
Dick Turpin wore a mask - these gits don't!
2007-01-17 23:21:54 · answer #10 · answered by Modern Major General 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋