I’m not renewing my TV licence - any pitfalls?

[Beresford]

As I understand, no licence is needed to "watch again" (on a computer) ITV or any providers other than the BBC.
You are not allowed to watch ITV etc. live on the computer, or to record the live stream to a DVD or computer storage for watching later. The licensing site is a bit coy about mentioning non-BBC channels.
Biggest loss for me is not being able to watch Cardiff Singer of the World, or Young Musician of the Year, (or Woolf Hall, or some sport).
I fill in the form online each year, ticking the box saying I only watch DVD (again the wording is coy, not mentioning ITV), and so far an email acknowledgement is all the bother I have had.
And Freeview radio is OK - I use it a great deal.

[Lat-Literal]

Everyone is entitled to decide what is best for them.

But the TV licence pays for BBC radio. Consequently, while a licence isn't required to be able to listen to BBC radio, every person who does not pay for a TV licence is risking the very future of BBC Radio 3 and other services. Indeed, as the word "threat" has been used so many times in this thread, I'd say that increasing trends in the direction of not paying are the biggest threat to the very future of BBC radio. I'd pay for a TV licence even if I chose not to have a television. This would not only be to help support ongoing BBC services (much as I would happily pay taxes for schools that educate other people's children) but also to support our national cohesion, national health, national culture and national security.

[ardcarp]

When I was a student my parent's television licence covered me as ling as I used a set running exclusively on battery. I wonder if the same still applies, and that one might access the iPlayer on a laptop when running on battery power and accessing a free wifi link?

Here's the official website.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/students-aud1?WT.mc_id=r044&x=0

It seems there is a 'battery-powered' clause, but that seems contrary to the opening 'Do students need a TV Licence?' clauses.
It is a fact that some students' halls of residence are being targeted by mobile 'detection units', and prosecutions are being brought.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/warning-students-300-young-people-plymouth-caught/story-20071901-detail/story.html

[DracoM]

Yes, I've heard from vacationing students the same in York and Newcastle.

[french frank]

There are other ways of charging for public service broadcasting. I would go for general taxation. But although most people do watch television, only about half of them buy a television licence. A house of two parents and two grown-up children have ONE licence between them; a shared house of six young people have ONE licence between them. Would you try to persuade them that they all ought to pay for their entertainment?

Everyone is entitled to decide what is best for them.

But the TV licence pays for BBC radio. Consequently, while a licence isn't required to be able to listen to BBC radio, every person who does not pay for a TV licence is risking the very future of BBC Radio 3 and other services. Indeed, as the word "threat" has been used so many times in this thread, I'd say that increasing trends in the direction of not paying are the biggest threat to the very future of BBC radio. I'd pay for a TV licence even if I chose not to have a television. This would not only be to help support ongoing BBC services (much as I would happily pay taxes for schools that educate other people's children) but also to support our national cohesion, national health, national culture and national security.

[Lat-Literal]

There are other ways of charging for public service broadcasting. I would go for general taxation. But although most people do watch television, only about half of them buy a television licence. A house of two parents and two grown-up children have ONE licence between them; a shared house of six young people have ONE licence between them. Would you try to persuade them that they all ought to pay for their entertainment?

Thank you for replying to my points, french frank.

I ought to acknowledge that the key one about the very future of BBC radio service provision had already been expressed by vinteuil with whom I increasingly concur.

Television licence payers do not as you suggest receive BBC radio services for free. Their money is contributing to BBC radio services. It is non licence payers who are receiving BBC radio services comparatively for free and they have been since the radio only licence ceased. I say "comparatively" so as not to rule out any minimal contributions to funding of BBC radio services by non television licence holders and many others from the nation's purse. I don't have information on how that alternative funding is provided, if at all.

Yes - there are other ways of charging for public service broadcasting. General tax is one. However, that is not the current deal on offer, nor has it been for many decades on the basis of elected Governments' policies. We are where we are and alternative policies on the far right or elsewhere for token funding via taxation are essentially for the ballot box.

To expand a little:

Given significant reductions in personal tax in the years after the 1970s, there is an argument that BBC Radio 3 and other BBC services would have gone long before now without the licence and even before the formation of FoR3. That is, as money raised from taxes was claimed by other policy areas considered in the fashionable moment to merit priority.

Even if that were not the case, to choose not to pay for the licence today is hardly the most obvious consumer lever towards a policy of general taxation funding for the latter would be a step towards broader compulsion, not less. In contrast, the current position offers greater flexibility not to pay, supported by adequate mechanisms for enforcement. There are tens of reasons why enforcement agencies can lawfully enter a home without a warrant so having detector vans and the like has never been an unusual imposition.

It is also the case that while most people need health prescriptions, 90% of health prescriptions are not paid for by individuals. As someone who has always paid even when without income for six years, I would support a more authoritarian system of checks in pharmacies and in a range of other areas where there could be a sense that increasing numbers of people were on the fiddle. This would bring such practices in line with new law on domestic puppy breeders and the tagging of pet dogs which will require additional enforcement.

Would I try to persuade a large household of adults all to pay for their radio and television services which in the case of the BBC are essentially diminished by the use of the one word "entertainment"? No - because I favour the licence and seek to minimize reductions in funding rather than to argue that funding should increase in real terms. Furthermore, such a media Poll Tax is hardly likely to be popular. It would therefore be a threat to the future of the BBC. Nevertheless, I note that unlike me almost every adult in a house owns a car and a mobile phone and has no issue with those aspects of entertainment. Many people also have computers so perhaps someone might prefer to consider taxing those?

Some may note that while I have temporarily changed my political stance, I am still very much a centrist. There may be an argument for being more influential where I now stand.

[Petrushka]

Match of the Day about 15 times per year,
University Challenge (however many there are in a series),
The Apprentice (a relative new thing to me, just the last 3 years, every episode)
Gordon Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares (about 10 times per year)
Question Time (about 5 times per year)
Miscellaneous items about 3 times per year (e.g. JEG did a thing on LvB 3/Berlioz a while back).

I only watch TV for the Saturday afternoon horse racing these days (or record weekday racing for later viewing when at work) and that's on ITV now and I don't think I've seriously watched a BBC TV drama serial since The Night Manager over 18 months ago. Other than that it's Proms only on TV. However, I'm happy to pay the TV licence as it goes towards the radio and the Proms or at least that's my thinking.

Personally. I think some form of subscription for certain BBC TV output is inevitable in the long run.

[EdgeleyRob]

I only watch football (mainly Sky and BT Sport),occasional music programmes and the odd Prom.
Watching tv always seems like wasting good music listening time.
Trouble is Mrs ER is a telly addict.

[oddoneout]

[QUOTE=french frank;617266]; a shared house of six young people have ONE licence between them. Would you try to persuade them that they all ought to pay for their entertainment?/QUOTE]
They have one licence if it's a joint tenancy agreement, otherwise yes they would each pay.

[gurnemanz]

Now I'm retired I watch TV a lot. Being a culture vulture, I also read books, listen to recorded music, go to the opera, theatre, concerts and galleries. There is a lot of great stuff out there on TV, even more if you have a satellite dish. Without my TV I would not have seen this Easter's Salzburg Walküre, discussed recently or last summer's Bayreuth Parsifal. Our daughter and her partner don't have not a TV but happily pay the licence for occasional online viewing because they believe in principle in making a contribution to the BBC finances on all our behalf.

[Beef Oven!]

I’m beginning to feel like a niggard!

[teamsaint]

I’m beginning to feel like a niggard!

Don't forget all the money you pay in supporting the proms.

How's about you pay a voluntary tenner to the BBC Each time they put on a proms performance of a Simpson/Partch/Arnold/Sessions/Schnittke major work ?

[Beef Oven!]

How's about you pay a voluntary tenner to the BBC Each time they put on a proms performance of a Simpson/Partch/Arnold/Sessions/Schnittke major work ?

No thanks, I buy the tickets, the CDs and the downloads, etc - but don’t let me stop others (£10 is a tad parsimonious, make it £20?).

[french frank]

; a shared house of six young people have ONE licence between them. Would you try to persuade them that they all ought to pay for their entertainment?

They have one licence if it's a joint tenancy agreement, otherwise yes they would each pay.

My point is that they DON'T pay for a licence (possibly a shared contribution to the one licence, though in a family household my guess is that they don't even pay that).

People seem to think it less important that half the population watch television free than that a tiny fraction don't pay NOT to watch it.

The law says that one licence covers an entire home, regardless of how many individuals watch (on average approximately one day - 24 hours - per week). This dispensation benefits about 50% of the population.

The law also says that if you don't have a television set and don't watch - live or on demand - you don't need a licence, a dispensation that benefits approximately 2% of the population.

People may choose, individually, do as they like (voluntary or illegal) but get the figures into perspective. Since Roger Wright I stopped listening to radio too - should I nevertheless have been contributing my £145.50 - for all the noble reasons people quote?

[aeolium]

People may choose, individually, do as they like (voluntary or illegal) but get the figures into perspective. Since Roger Wright I stopped listening to radio too - should I nevertheless have been contributing my £145.50 - for all the noble reasons people quote?

I suppose it might partially depend on what your view of the BBC's role is: whether it is a public service or an essentially optional and dispensable entertainment service. My view is that it is a public service and an important one at that. Like you I think it should be funded through taxation, as all other public services are, but unfortunately we currently have an imperfect and unfair licence fee system. If there is a shortfall in BBC funding, partly through the government's freezing the level of the licence fee for several years and partly - even though the numbers are small - through people choosing not to have a licence, then that will eventually affect the quality of the services the BBC provides, including the minority services such as R3, the Proms, the World Service perhaps, that you also value. One way around the dilemma would be to buy a black and white TV licence (£49 I think), so that you would at least be making a contribution.