No TV Licence

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

albion

Guru
Location
Gateshead
much better to buy British products and use British retailers than pay for a TV licence. The BBC spends a lot of money abroad on international journalists and other operations. I actually see the BBC as a negative as its so grossly inefficient and we need to develop cost effective efficient companies rather than organisations like the BBC that waste huge amounts of money. I mean how many orchestras were they paying for at one point? It was ridiculous a complete waste of money.
Competitors are Netflix, Apple TV, Amazon Prime, Disney and Warner. They all seem to link across the pond to agent orange.
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
That's how it should work, you use the service so you should pay for it. However it is incredibly unfair to ITV that you need a licence to view their channels which are funded by advertising. That condition should never have been included that any live tv needed a TV Licence because it damages commercial channels.

In that case, how did they come into existence?

A TV licence was required to use a TV before commercial channels existed in the UK. TV licences were introduced in 1946, with the first commercial stations not broadcasting until 1955.

Those first TV licences were required to use a TV set, without any reference to the BBC or other broadcasters. And it basically stayed that way until new rules were required to cover cable and satellitre TV, and later internet coverage.

I really don't accept that requiring a licence damages commercial TV in any real sense.
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
much better to buy British products and use British retailers than pay for a TV licence.
A complteley pointless suggestion, since it isn't remotely close to being an either-or situation.

he BBC spends a lot of money abroad on international journalists and other operations. I actually see the BBC as a negative as its so grossly inefficient and we need to develop cost effective efficient companies rather than organisations like the BBC that waste huge amounts of money. I mean how many orchestras were they paying for at one point? It was ridiculous a complete waste of money.

This is a completely different point, which does have some merit, though I'm not sure many of the current alternatives are much better.
 

DaveReading

Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
Location
Reading, obvs
We used to get letters because the TV licence database is an inaccurate mess and they can't tell which properties are licensed, let alone which people.
I'd have thought that nowadays it would be a trivial exercise to get a 99.99% correlation between the records of TV licenced properties and the Royal Mail's postal address database.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
I'd have thought that nowadays it would be a trivial exercise to get a 99.99% correlation between the records of TV licenced properties and the Royal Mail's postal address database.
So would I, but it's probably cheaper to harass some licencees than to pay Royal Mail for the data.
 
Last edited:

albion

Guru
Location
Gateshead
If so I certainly expect a petition ahead ..........

One good upshot of all this is the BBC is currently doing some good factual reporting.
 
Last edited:

infinityleague

Active Member
Location
London
Off topic & don’t normally watch TV except Netflix & Prime but is there a way to uninstall the free view channels on your Samsung tv? Deleted all the BBC related content. Factory reset brings me to back to the initial set-up Samsung TV page and makes me tune them again?!.

Never paid for the license & wanting to keep it that way. Major watching happens on the eyepee tv though. 😀
 
Top Bottom