Television Licence Fee

ecoleman said:
I don't really care. If you are really interested, you'll have to do your own research.

In 2023 it was reported that 2.8 million households no longer pay TV licence (it will be more now). Now you can do the maths on 2-3 threatening letters per month for each of those.
www.dailymail.co.uk

Mass revolt as 2.8million claim they don't need to pay BBC licence fee

A record 2.84 million people now insist they are no longer obliged to fork out £159 for the annual charge because they don't watch BBC channels or any kind of live TV.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that TV Licensing are sending out 2.8 million letters 2-3 times a month?
 
Eucris said:
Are you seriously suggesting that TV Licensing are sending out 2.8 million letters 2-3 times a month?
Click to expand...

We obvioulsy I don't know that for sure but there were 2.8 million (now 3.something million) households without a TV licence. I receive on average 2-3 letters a month from them. So make of that what you will.

This is all I could find with a quick google. Seems to date back to 2015 though.

From Page 26
So far as costs to the licence fee payer are concerned, the BBC spends around 2.7% of TV licence fee revenues on investigating and prosecuting licence fee evasion. This figure, which amounts to £102m, is a significant fall from the 6% spent when the scheme of prosecution and enforcement was administered by the Home Office.
Click to expand...

From Page 25
An estimated £26m of TV Licensing evasion fines are imposed each year,96 and although the actual figure collected is lower,97 court time and enforcement costs are largely met by the amounts recovered.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Not having a TC licence is a criminal matter, not a civil one. Therefore it is not for me to prove my innocence but for the BBC or Ofcom to prove me guilty.

I don't have a Ham radio. Should I also confirm that I do not operate one of these?
I don't fly a drone. Should I write the the CAA and inform them that I don't need a drone licence each year.
Should I write to the plot and tell them I don't have a firearm?
I don't have a pilots licence either, who should I inform that I don't fly a plane?
Click to expand...

That's a fair point... however, a significant difference with those examples is the "opt in" licensing model. The overwhelming majority of folks won't need licenses for those things because only a small minority are hams, drone users, firearm owners or private pilots - and they'll apply for licenses as and when they require them. With television, thus far the assumption has been that the majority of households will need a TV license - and despite the yearly fall in license numbers, for now that assumption holds true. It's more of an "opt out" model, where TV Licnesing's position is "You probably need a TV license, so tell us if and why you don't"...
 
Last edited:
ProggyMat said:
That's a fair point... however, a significant difference with those examples is the "opt in" licensing model. The overwhelming majority of folks won't need licenses for those things because only a small minority are hams, drone users, firearm owners or private pilots - and they'll apply for licenses as and when they require them. With television, thus far the assumption has been that the majority of households will need a TV license - and despite the yearly fall in license numbers, for now that assumption holds true. It's more of an "opt out" model, where TV Licnesing's position is "You probably need a TV license, so tell us if and why you don't"...
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't think that assumption does hold true any more. That's why hundreds of thousands of people are cancelling their licence each year.

We're no. longer in the 1960's-1990's and TV's can be used for many different things. So a licence is just as much opt-in as any other. Times have changed, The BBC have not. They need to find another funding model instead of bullying people with threatening letters. The people have woken up, time the BBC did the same.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Sorry but I don't think that assumption does hold true any more. That's why hundreds of thousands of people are cancelling their licence each year.

We're no. longer in the 1960's-1990's and TV's can be used for many different things. So a licence is just as much opt-in as any other. Times have changed, The BBC have not. They need to find another funding model instead of bullying people with threatening letters. The people have woken up, time the BBC did the same.
Click to expand...

From The House of Commons' "TV license fee statistics" and TV Licensing "Licences facts and figures":

- Total TV Licence Fee Revenue: In 2011/12, revenue was £3.6 billion, rising to £3.8 billion in 2021/22. However, by 2022/23, revenue had declined slightly to £3.74 billion, reflecting a drop in paid licences.
- Number of Licences in Force: As of March 2024, there were 23,888,110 licences in force, down from 24,347,970 in April 2023. This suggests a steady decline in licence holders.
- Evasion Rate: The estimated evasion rate increased from 5.50% in 2012/13 to 10.31% in 2022/23, indicating a growing number of households opting out or failing to pay.
- BBC Funding: The licence fee accounted for 65% of BBC funding in 2022/23, down from 71% in 2021/22, showing a shift in revenue sources.

... and from this article, the BBC itself says around 80% of households take out a TV license.

So, yes - numbers are undoubtedly in decline, and I agree that a new funding model is needed (even the BBC acknowledges this)... but, thus far, the assumption that the majority of households need licenses does indeed hold true - according to the linked sources...
 
Last edited:
ProggyMat said:
From The House of Commons' "TV license fee statistics" and TV Licensing "Licences facts and figures":

- Total TV Licence Fee Revenue: In 2011/12, revenue was £3.6 billion, rising to £3.8 billion in 2021/22. However, by 2022/23, revenue had declined slightly to £3.74 billion, reflecting a drop in paid licences.
- Number of Licences in Force: As of March 2024, there were 23,888,110 licences in force, down from 24,347,970 in April 2023. This suggests a steady decline in licence holders.
- Evasion Rate: The estimated evasion rate increased from 5.50% in 2012/13 to 10.31% in 2022/23, indicating a growing number of households opting out or failing to pay.
- BBC Funding: The licence fee accounted for 65% of BBC funding in 2022/23, down from 71% in 2021/22, showing a shift in revenue sources.

... and from this article, the BBC itself says around 80% of households take out a TV license.

So, yes - numbers are undoubtedly in decline, and I agree that a new funding model is needed (even the BBC acknowledges this)... but, thus far, the assumption that the majority of households do need a license does indeed hold true - according to the linked sources.
Click to expand...

Don't you love they way they call it an "Evasion Rate"

I'm not evading anything. Legally I don't have to pay it just like I don't have to pay Netflix unless I subscribe to their services.

It's not an Evasion Rate, it's a people don't watch your s***ty content anymore and refuse to fund you rate.
 
ProggyMat said:
They should have used different terms for those like you who opt out legitimately vs those who do actually evade (i.e. eating the steak but not paying for it)...
Click to expand...

I would also hazard a guess that a large number of those do are paying the TV licence are doing so because they don't know they don't have to.

The letters from TV licensing are quite threatening and make it seem like you need a licence just for having a TV.
 
ecoleman said:
The letters from TV licensing are quite threatening and make it seem like you need a licence just for having a TV.
Click to expand...

Not nice... I don't like that at all.

I did once toy with the idea of ditching live TV altogether, but decided against. If I'd gone down that route, I think I'd have bought a large monitor rather than a TV, so it didn't even contain reception or streaming capability. I may still do that next time I replace my TV, and buy a separate box for TV reception and streaming. So-called "smart" TVs these days are all Android based and receive very few (often, zero) operating system updates... so after a while, as streaming apps are updated beyond the TV's OS version, they gradually lose functionality. It's a pet hate of mine. My current TV has a perfectly good screen, and an Android OS that now supports only a subset of the streaming services I want to use...
 
Last edited:
Since 2006 the "TV licence" has been a tax, which is collected annually by the BBC, as agent for the government.

As it's a tax, it should really be collected from any person in possession of any device capable of receiving a TV signal. I consider it morally wrong of various governments to have created "loopholes" in the legislation, allowing certain people to avoid this tax.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Since 2006 the "TV licence" has been a tax, which is collected annually by the BBC, as agent for the government.

As it's a tax, it should really be collected from any person in possession of any device capable of receiving a TV signal. I consider it morally wrong of various governments to have created "loopholes" in the legislation, allowing certain people to avoid this tax.
Click to expand...

I don't know why the TV license fee isn't just incorporated into one of the HMRC-controlled taxes we already pay, such as income tax or NI. Most folks more-or-less accept taxation as a fact of life, without fretting over the individual services it funds and the costs of each. I imagine a minor tweak to one or more taxes, either via rates or thresholds, could generate revenue to match or exceed what the current licensing arrangement brings in, with no need for individual service enforcement. The government and/or BBC must surely have considered this as an option, so perhaps I'm probably over-simplifying it or missing some fundamental issue that makes it unviable...
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Christ, next you’ll be asking the government to charge you Vat even though you’ve bought nothing.

If you like the BBC so much, you pay for it.
Click to expand...

I already do ;)

If you're a taxpayer, I'm guessing you pay up without knowing how or where much of it is spent... yet plenty of services you never use are funded by it. How about a rehabilitation programme for prisoners to train rescue dogs? Yup... paid for by your taxes. How about some small, oddball museum in a part of the country you never visit? That'll receive some funding from your taxes too. We don't ask to be charged for these, but we pay for them nonetheless. Whether-or-not you agree they're for the greater good, that's how they're viewed by government - so they receive funding, and that comes from your taxes and mine...

There's lots about the BBC I don't like, as I've already mentioned - but on balance I think it's a good and necessary thing. It could be so much better, but I believe we'd be worse off without it. I'm not saying you should pay for it... only that funding it through the established HMRC tax system is one possible solution.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
If you like the BBC so much, you pay for it.
Click to expand...
...which is what most people do, whether they like it or not.

However, the point made above is that it's a tax and as such should not be optional. The idea that people might choose which taxes they pay, is one of the stranger opinions of tories, tramps and thieves, to misquote Bob Stone's lyrics.
 
I'm simply saying that you could probably avoid receiving all the chasing and other letters from OfCom (TV Licensing), by providing them with confirmation that you don't use the facilities that require a licence. If you don't mind receiving the letters, then fine, let them keep sending them, as you do.
 
Last edited:
lindsay said:
I didn't realise it was the BBC and not OfCom who do the tv licensing. So the discussion has at least informed me!
Click to expand...

To be 100% accurate, Capita manages the licensing on behalf of the BBC. It's interesting that OfCom aren't involved though, isn't it? Like you, I'm an amateur radio license holder (though I've been inactive for some years), and I assumed OfCom was responsible for all spectrum management and relevant licensing.

And now I'm thinking, the BBC probably wouldn't want to be funded through core taxes, as that probably gives the government greater power to reduce said funding when the UK's finances are taking a battering (and when aren't they, these days?). The number of TV licences may be gradually reducing, but at least the revenue comes straight to the Beeb...
 
Last edited:
That's why I'm thinking that a streaming subscription that is negotiated with main providers like Virgin, Sky, TalkTalk, BT etc to be embedded in their subscriptions probably makes sense with the option of directly subscribing like people to with Netflix, Apple etc. It would be interesting if you could work out the numbers on that, because a global subscription model in that kind of setup is likely to be fairly lucrative.
 
lindsay said:
That's why I'm thinking that a streaming subscription that is negotiated with main providers like Virgin, Sky, TalkTalk, BT etc to be embedded in their subscriptions probably makes sense with the option of directly subscribing like people to with Netflix, Apple etc. It would be interesting if you could work out the numbers on that, because a global subscription model in that kind of setup is likely to be fairly lucrative.
Click to expand...

I take your point. Playing Devil's Advocate though, one potential problem I can see with that is, all services distributed by those providers are (I think) funded not just through subscriptions, but by advertising too. Could a BBC subscription be lucrative enough without advertising? I don't know. If not, would advertising risk compromising the neutrality BBC aims for? Again, I don't know... but I think it might...
 
Last edited:
Arguing with a Mod does not end well, Elliott. Please don't.
 
when we lived in France the TV licence fee was added to your household rates - Taxe d'habitation or Taxe foncière - I cannot remember which

you had to write and "opt out" (Register Letter of course), if you said that you did not have a TV..........and no doubt being France an Inspector would visit you to confirm your position
 
Last edited:
JohnC6 said:
My bold.

The BBC have embarked on a viewer feedback campaign. I had an Email a few days ago asking me to give my opinion on it and how it can be improved should I have any ideas.
Click to expand...

I've already completed the feedback, John. In all honesty, I thought the questions were a bit leading and cleverly worded - but that could just be my take. Still, I filled it in and added some written comments. I hope as many people as possible will do the same, and I hope it really does inform the Beeb's future direction. Frankly, I don't expect a huge shift... not even an especially significant one; and certainly not soon... but if any improvements come out of the exercise at some point in the not-too-distant future, it's a good thing.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
I don't really care. If you are really interested, you'll have to do your own research.

In 2023 it was reported that 2.8 million households no longer pay TV licence (it will be more now). Now you can do the maths on 2-3 threatening letters per month for each of those.
www.dailymail.co.uk

Mass revolt as 2.8million claim they don't need to pay BBC licence fee

A record 2.84 million people now insist they are no longer obliged to fork out £159 for the annual charge because they don't watch BBC channels or any kind of live TV.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...

why are you so angry at everything?
Were you at a a catholic boys school?
 
ProggyMat said:
I've already completed the feedback, John. In all honesty, I thought the questions were a bit leading and cleverly worded - but that could just be my take. Still, I filled it in and added some written comments. I hope as many people as possible will do the same, and I hope it really does inform the Beeb's future direction. Frankly, I don't expect a huge shift... not even an especially significant one; and certainly not soon... but if any improvements come out of the exercise at some point in the not-too-distant future, it's a good thing.
Click to expand...

For a couple of years I was part of a BBC feedback group, and the questions asked about critical issues were often designed to get a particular kind of answer, usually biased towards 'diversity' where it was the subject. Other areas, it seemed much more genuine and open.
 
One problem with streamimg is the delay. Its no longer the 15:00 kickoff matches, they start at 15:01:30, or thereabouts…

Roll the TV Licence up with other taxes and charge everyone.

Why should I pay for rubbish commercial TV in the price of products that I buy that are advertised on rubbish commercial TV?
 
ancient_mariner said:
For a couple of years I was part of a BBC feedback group, and the questions asked about critical issues were often designed to get a particular kind of answer, usually biased towards 'diversity' where it was the subject. Other areas, it seemed much more genuine and open.
Click to expand...

I got a similar feeling from this current survey, Toni. Some questions seemed genuine and open, others I felt were subtly leading and perhaps designed to support certain agendas and outcomes.
 
Last edited:
I do still appreciate the BBC news service even though I've not had a TV since 1981. At some stage in the future I might consider subscribing for the news, if that were available as an option, but not the rest of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top