Don't see why anyone needs a licence to watch television. They laughed us out of the shop when we bought a TV in Aus and asked if we needed a licence to watch it. Having said that, if there was no licence fee then the funding would have to come out of taxation if it was to remain a public service broadcaster, so we'd be paying for it anyway. Interestingly, they reckon the ABC costs each person $0.14 per day. Based on that being every person, a family of four is paying roughly $200 per year. That cost is not far off what each household pays in the UK at £145. The fact that our population is over 3 times the Australian population you could expect our fee to be a little cheaper.
Really we should all stop paying, we don't need one if we dont watch or record live TV. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12
Why? I'd also like to publically admit that I don't pay for other services I don't use either. I had one roughly 4 years ago for the Olympics (actually, I guess that was 3 years ago, I've lost count) as I actually watched TV then. I didn't watch it before or since and therefore I haven't bought a licence. It's bad enough I pay for a gym subscription I don't use, I'm not paying for a TV one too.
That loophole disappearing in a year or so. You'll need a licence even if all you watch is catch-up services.
No. Not that using radio or online services (excluding live streaming) would make a difference anyway.
Difference being that the BBC produces dramas and documentaries which are respected the world over. Australia produces Neighbours.
It's on their website. "If you don't watch TV at all, or you only ever watch on demand or catch-up TV, you can tell us you don't need a TV Licence. Please check the frequently asked questions below and then complete our No Licence Needed Declaration." Edit: sorry you said disappearing. Yes I think they are looking at amending it so that you will need a licence to watch catch-up in the future.
Er, have you ever read what it says on their website? Aussie Ade has posted it in case you're unsure. It specifically states that no licence is needed if you only watch catch up services, who am I to argue against them?
But within the year, you'll need a licence even if you only watch catch-up services, which is fair I'd say. Programmes need paying for. It was a daft loophole, thankfully closing soon.
Completely agree. Unfortunately far too many Britons will only realise what an asset the BBC is once we have lost it.
I can see a need for a licence fee when all we had was five channels, but nowadays it's a bit daft that we're paying the BBC to broadcast Homes under the Hammer. They should trim it down to the website and the 24 hour news channel, only with shows like Question Time and Panorama thrown in instead of non-stop news coverage. But then people would moan about job losses.
It's obvious. The DCMS used to pay the BBC for each and every "free" licence was issued. The cost of this is being transferred to the BBC so in effect the BBC's income had been reduced by some £600 million