Tv licence has "10 years left"

[muddycoffee]

Still trying to figure out why the show the news several times a day on BBC1 when the have BBC news running 24/7.

I'd like to ask the BBC when it was that their definition of the word "News" changed to concentrating on media and celebrity matters.

What passes for "news" today is a poor example of recycled tittle tattle. Even for the bulk of the bulletins on serious news programmes. It is utterly pointless.

[Vague_Boy]

An article in The Mirror on so-called TV license "loophole".

 

BBC Licence Fee loophole revealed: Do you need to pay for the £145.50 television licence?

 

A loophole has emerged for people who don't want to pay the BBC Television Licence as it's been revealed the corporation has been forced to axe 1000 jobs to cope with a budget shortfall.

 

If you don't watch live television - via any means - then you have no need for a Television Licence.

 

LINK

 

This "new" information has been on the TV licensing website for years.

 

It's a bit like saying if you don't kill someone, that's a hidden "loophole" for staying out of jail.

 

Still, at least the myth (prevalent amongst the hard of thinking) that you need a license just to own a TV is being challenged.

 

And their poll shows 96% in favour of abolishing the license.

 

After 8 years being LLF (Legally License Free) I must have saved over £1160 by now.

 

Maybe I'll buy myself a whopping great flat screen TV with the money.

[alchresearch]

I was tinkering with iPlayer on my Kindle Fire stick yesterday. Although it allowed me to view programmes which had already been shown (I was watching the awesome performance of FFS at Glasto), there was a clear link to "watch live", and it did show last night's Masterchef, albeit about a minute behind the "traditional" live broadcast.

 

Does that mean that I have to buy a TV licence, even if I never click on the "Watch live" link?

[bigsexydoug]

What I don't really understand aswell isfans of the bbc say it's envied around the world, then why isn't it making more money from overseas sales, they only make a 25% of their money from the entire world yet 75% from the UK alone.

 

The 2 don't add up !

[alchresearch]

What I don't really understand aswell isfans of the bbc say it's envied around the world, then why isn't it making more money from overseas sales, they only make a 25% of their money from the entire world yet 75% from the UK alone.

 

The 2 don't add up !

 

Maybe they only sell a small amount of their output? Doctor Who and Top Gear and Sherlock are the three biggest money spinners.

 

I can't imagine many foreign countries wanting to shell out for "homes under the hammer".

 

---------- Post added 03-07-2015 at 12:44 ----------

 

UK TV is getting worse as younglings shun the BBC et al, says Ofcom

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/03/ofcom_psb_report/

[bigsexydoug]

Maybe they only sell a small amount of their output? Doctor Who and Top Gear and Sherlock are the three biggest money spinners.

 

I can't imagine many foreign countries wanting to shell out for "homes under the hammer".

 

---------- Post added 03-07-2015 at 12:44 ----------

 

UK TV is getting worse as younglings shun the BBC et al, says Ofcom

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/03/ofcom_psb_report/

 

Just doesn't add up though, they have got what 65 million customers here yet with a product that's "envied all over the world" could have another 6.95 BILLION customers.

 

Why wouldn't they sell the product and use the profits to make its product even better

[mimic]

Why wouldn't they sell the product and use the profits to make its product even better

 

If they had to make more decent programs that had a financial value that earned both revenue and returning viewers, like all other TV businesses, they couldn't carry on with the same BS about how they depend on the license fee and their "you WILL pay" philosophy.

 

ITV make and don't sell a program or it doesn't get viewers they lose money. The BBC does the same on a regular basis but the forced fee payers lose the money. Why should the BBC worry about a very competitive export market when they are guaranteed an income no matter what rubbish they feel is ok to churn out.

[Happ Hazzard]

Game of Thrones is the most popular TV programme in the world. Why don't BBC make something like this?

[ECCOnoob]

Game of Thrones is the most popular TV programme in the world. Why don't BBC make something like this?

 

Maybe HBO got their first. Maybe it was AMERICAN screenwriters who adapted the books for TV.

 

What has that got to do with anything?

 

The BBC has not been absent of creating not only home based record beating programmes but also sold their formats all over the world.

 

Top Gear certainly being the most prominent. There has also been Dr Who, Strictly Come Dancing, Masterchef, Call the Midwife, Life Story and casting your minds back The Weakest Link all were BBC creations which exports and format rights were massive global successes.

 

Masses of BBC archive is used as the bulk of Sky and Freeview's output.

 

Look around the exported sales of other channels. How many ITV programmes with say exception of Who want to be a Millionaire have got anywhere near the global attention the BBC has.

 

It would not be able to produce what is does on subscription alone. Any commercial bias would wipe out funding for the totally forgotten but absolutely essential services such as Education, University, Consumer, Current Affairs and Religious programmes. Nobody would pay subscriptions for signed, audio described or other special access programmes.

 

The BBC without the licence fee would be an empty shell just like the US channel PBS. I certainly don't want to see it that way.

 

That's before we even get onto the 58 widely used radio stations which the licence fee critics are happy to listen to but seemingly think are funded by magic beans.

 

People need to stop thinking about the BBC as something they just seen on their screens. Its a PUBLIC SERVICE. An important one at that. The licence fees pay for a hell of a lot more than just what is seen on screen and its whose original set up gave us the physical capabilities to receive this freely available audio, visual and online content.

 

All these Sky and Freeview fans would be crying if the BBC influence and/or made contents were absent. How many OWN made programmes do those stations create.

Edited July 4, 2015 by ECCOnoob

[bigsexydoug]

Maybe HBO got their first. Maybe it was AMERICAN screenwriters who adapted the books for TV.

 

What has that got to do with anything?

 

The BBC has not been absent of creating not only home based record beating programmes but also sold their formats all over the world.

 

Top Gear certainly being the most prominent. There has also been Dr Who, Strictly Come Dancing, Masterchef, Call the Midwife, Life Story and casting your minds back The Weakest Link all were BBC creations which exports and format rights were massive global successes.

 

Masses of BBC archive is used as the bulk of Sky and Freeview's output.

 

Look around the exported sales of other channels. How many ITV programmes with say exception of Who want to be a Millionaire have got anywhere near the global attention the BBC has.

 

It would not be able to produce what is does on subscription alone. Any commercial bias would wipe out funding for the totally forgotten but absolutely essential services such as Education, University, Consumer, Current Affairs and Religious programmes. Nobody would pay subscriptions for signed, audio described or other special access programmes.

 

The BBC without the licence fee would be an empty shell just like the US channel PBS. I certainly don't want to see it that way.

 

That's before we even get onto the 58 widely used radio stations which the licence fee critics are happy to listen to but seemingly think are funded by magic beans.

 

People need to stop thinking about the BBC as something they just seen on their screens. Its a PUBLIC SERVICE. An important one at that. The licence fees pay for a hell of a lot more than just what is seen on screen and its whose original set up gave us the physical capabilities to receive this freely available audio, visual and online content.

 

All these Sky and Freeview fans would be crying if the BBC influence and/or made contents were absent. How many OWN made programmes do those stations create.

 

Lol, some right twaddle in that post, apart from dave who just puts repeats of top gear on a loop I think you would be surprised, most of the stuff is American made and you know what it's fantastic, top movies, top drama, top documentaries, you say the BBC has a global attention, first of all then why are it's sales are plummeting downwards in the UK and if it has such massive attention around the world then why are it's overseas sales so poor ? We both know why cos it produces crap tv that can't be sold easily, yes it makes the odd good show every few years but so do every other channel, you seem proud if it's 58 radio stations, yet some of these are duplicate of another one they run ,do we really need radio 6 and radio 6 extra ? Really?

 

Why does radio 1 need to pay hundreds of thousands to dj's, it's not a talk radio station discussing points of view, it's sole reason is to play popular music, yet they hire dj after dj to stop playing music.

 

At least you have admitted that it would be destroyed without the licence fee,

So if its educational and cultural content was protected by General taxationon on one or two channels and its " entertainment" was made subscription based you would have no complaints about that ?