Will you keep your TV licence ?

Just to add..I am considering whether to keep ours !

We're keeping ours.

Smileless2012

We're keeping ours.

Is this because you feel it's good value, or because you fear the consequences of not having one or is it just easier to stay how you are ? Not being flippant, just interested in different points of view.I'm finding we don't watch much on BBC now, there are one or two things we would miss, we rarely watch live telly anyway , but of the few things we watch regularly, are they worth nearly £200.For people who watch all the time or lots of BBC content I could well understand wanting to stay.

We will keep ours. I value a national broadcaster. Not a single other station has given the quality over the years that the BBC has done.

We think it's good value Rocketstop and I also agree with WW that the BBC is something to be valued.

I don't watch anything on BBC but will keep paying till they hopefully change the system.

You need to think differently about what the licence is.

The licence fee is a tax on broadcast reception, not just for the BBC to fund public service broadcasting but also covering the infrastructure used by commercial channels.

Think of it like Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), commonly known as road tax. You many stick to A and B roads and never drive on a motorway or use public transport (which VED goes towards) but you still have to have a licence.

Never thought of dropping it. Surely good value for around 50p a day.

I think the licence is for the ability to receive any tv programmes not just BBC.

We will definitely keep ours though i do think the system needs an overhaul.

Definitely keeping ours. We don't watch much "live" Tele but do watch a lot on the BBC iPlayer. The licence fee is worth that alone. We don't have Netflix or Sky.

A TV licence is required in the UK if you watch or record live TV on any channel (e.g., BBC, ITV, Sky, Channel 4) or use BBC iPlayer, regardless of the device (TV, laptop, phone, console ). It costs £174.50 for a standard colour licence. You do not need one if you only watch on-demand, non-BBC content

Quite hard to restrict yourself to that last sentence. .

Yes we understand the system which is why I continue to pay and just hope they change the system soon. I would think the increasing number of people not paying will eventually lead to a shift.

Mum has one and we do too, but hardly any younger people pay for one.You can sign a disclaimer about it but in any case I think it’s a myth that they still go after those who don’t pay up.

Graphite

You need to think differently about what the licence is.

The licence fee is a tax on broadcast reception, not just for the BBC to fund public service broadcasting but also covering the infrastructure used by commercial channels.

Think of it like Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), commonly known as road tax. You many stick to A and B roads and never drive on a motorway or use public transport (which VED goes towards) but you still have to have a licence.

Do they not charge commercial channels for their use of the infrastructure?

If you want to compare it to VED, then maybe there should be different bands like VED, which isn't a flat 'one size fits all' fee'. Somebody who watches hours of TV every day gets a lot more value than somebody else who watches only very occasionally.

Here's a theoretical that I know would never be introduced but what if you had to have a licence in order to receive Royal Mail postal deliveries, and that was a flat 'one size fits all' to pay for the infrastructure etc? Would the person who gets 10 letters a year be as happy as the one who receives multiple offerings every day? Would that be fair and excellent value for all?

To answer the OP's question, yes I will keep my TV licence even though I very much disagree with the system. I watch virtually no live TV (sport being the exception), recording what little I do want to watch. Days can go by without my watching anything, most of which isn't BBC content.

Galaxy

Yes we understand the system which is why I continue to pay and just hope they change the system soon. I would think the increasing number of people not paying will eventually lead to a shift.

We, too, continue to pay because we know what the system is.

I think it is a daft system because it has become so very outdated; licences for things like radios and dogs were abolished a long time ago, I assume because the cost of policing them far outweighed any benefit that might have accrued from collecting them.

The fact that very few people are prosecuted for not paying the TV licence tells me that it is futile of government to make having one a legal requirement if the sanction for not having one is not going to be consistently applied.

I very much value that we have a good and extensive (it encompasses radio, too, don't forget) public broadcasting system which doesn't carry advertising and is, theoretically, free from political bias. I think it is an essential 'public good'. like education, justice, health services etc. which should be paid for by the state without the pretence that it is funded by our licence fees.

Just as with any other of the state provided services the money put into the BBC will circulate in the economy, not only by payment of wages and salaries but by helping to sustain the private enterprises which depend on it, both directly and indirectly.

Incidentally, the mention of VED reminds me that in the days before motorised vehicles, horse drawn transport was subject to some sort of taxation... It wasn't a novel concept for motor vehicles.

I am a BBC fan, am quite happy to pay 50 pence a day for four!

Get a VPN

nanna8 a VPN would only assist in breaking the law, it is not a lawful way to avoid the licence fee.

Graphite

You need to think differently about what the licence is.

The licence fee is a tax on broadcast reception, not just for the BBC to fund public service broadcasting but also covering the infrastructure used by commercial channels.

Think of it like Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), commonly known as road tax. You many stick to A and B roads and never drive on a motorway or use public transport (which VED goes towards) but you still have to have a licence.

86% goes to the BBC, so this 'it covers infrastructure' etc should be put in perspective.

Rosie51

nanna8 a VPN would only assist in breaking the law, it is not a lawful way to avoid the licence fee.

Fair enough if you do watch it. Do you have to get a licence to watch itv as well? Could you just not watch it and rely on Netflix etc? Genuinely wondering…

Of course I’ll pay it. I listen to R6, BBC Sounds and watch iplayer all the time. Most of the programmes on the other channels are old BBC programmes.

I'll keep mine. I do think that the licence fee will be replaced at some point with a subscription service, which again I would pay for as long as it doesn't start having adverts.

I rarely watch tv but I listen to the radio a lot. For most people watching tv is the norm and radio is just the addon so to have it thrown in free is a bonus.

I feel uncomfortable getting something for nothing an I am more than happy to buy a tv licence in order to make a contribution to the cost of the radio programmes I listen to

If you want to compare it to VED, then maybe there should be different bands like VED, which isn't a flat 'one size fits all' fee'. Somebody who watches hours of TV every day gets a lot more value than somebody else who watches only very occasionally.

It would be an interesting experiment to take a group of diverse people to represent a sample of UK service users.

Apply a notional PAYG system for all of the services used that are currently paid for as either a flat fee e.g. the TV Licence or based on banding e.g. VED or council tax.

A cost per programme watched or hours of viewing or listening, a charge per journey or hours on the road, a charge for every day a child goes to school, every bin emptied, every bus journey (if you have a free pass), every walk in the park (or indeed on a pavement or footpath) every book borrowed from the library etc etc.

Pay per mile is coming for EVs and PHEVs so it’s not so outrageous.

I wonder what the result would be?