We catch around 1,000 evaders every day

[Marcos]

"the maximum penalty is a fine of £1000"
- TV Licensing




So....they make up to £1,000,000 a day?

Yeah now i definitely dont care for them one bit

[kalniel]

Most simply pay for a license without much penalty.

[format]

Most simply pay for a license without much penalty.

That might be true, if that figure of '1000 people a day' figure was real

[neonplanet40]

The license costs too much.

Nuff said

[Whiternoise]

The TV License company is a joke, even if the license isn't a bad idea. They're nothing more than a bunch of scaremongering bullies.

The license costs too much.

Nuff said

I think it's actually very reasonable if you compare the quality of the programming that we get from the BBC to other countries. For all their bad points and scandals about how much celebrities are paid, they do a very good job at upholding their mission statement and their role as a public service broadcaster.

BBC news is probably the best TV/Radio news coverage in the world - just compare it to the US outlets.

Plus you're paying to keep it all ad free which is a major bonus in my book, especially when ITV/C4 turn up the volume deliberately when the ads come on.

[sadbuttrue]

BBC tax collectors have no legal right to enter your home. The only way one can be fined is to either a) grant these bullies access or b) admit to owning a TV without a license. Almost every person "caught" without a BBC license has their own stupidity/ignorance to blame. Most people are intimidated by the BBC thugs turning up at their doorstep. If you wish to skirt the "law", know your rights.

[Rob_B]

It's reasonable considering the content but it is mandatory, which is wrong...

[Barakka]

The TV License company is a joke, even if the license isn't a bad idea. They're nothing more than a bunch of scaremongering bullies.



I think it's actually very reasonable if you compare the quality of the programming that we get from the BBC to other countries. For all their bad points and scandals about how much celebrities are paid, they do a very good job at upholding their mission statement and their role as a public service broadcaster.

BBC news is probably the best TV/Radio news coverage in the world - just compare it to the US outlets.

Plus you're paying to keep it all ad free which is a major bonus in my book, especially when ITV/C4 turn up the volume deliberately when the ads come on.

+1

In every country i've visited the free television and general radio has been dreadful in comparison to what we get from the BBC.

[neonplanet40]

But its the fact i have no choice that gets me. I already pay for sky. It has enough channels for me!! Take the BBC off and I couldnt care less.

[nibbler]

actually it would be cumulative, so they would make as much as £1000000 from enw evaders each day many millions each day

[neonplanet40]

Yea and even then it barely covered Ross's wage

[Tumble]

Plus you're paying to keep it all ad free which is a major bonus in my book, especially when ITV/C4 turn up the volume deliberately when the ads come on.

Lowe is probably the man to tell you EXACTLY why the adverts seem louder, but I understand it to be the case that with everything being digital now, (even if you're receiving an analogue signal - the broadcast end is all on computers), to make the advert files smaller, they compress the audio and essentially chop off the high and low range bits, which makes the volume go up for some reason - the effect is the same as when you switch from Radio 1 to Radio 3 - 3 seems much quieter because the audio is barely touched, so you have the full range, which lets you hear all of the orchestra.

[Whiternoise]

They don't seem louder, they are louder, broadcasters have been sued because of it - c.f. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bus...01002315551098

There is some argument for the change in sound quality, but it doesn't wash with me - not when they later got rapped for it.

[jim]

But its the fact i have no choice that gets me. I already pay for sky. It has enough channels for me!! Take the BBC off and I couldnt care less.

You've also got to consider the website and radio though, it's not just the tv channels.

I'm not majorly fussed about the TV, or even the radio (listen to five live about twice a year), but the website I use constantly.

[scaryjim]

It's reasonable considering the content but it is mandatory, which is wrong...

But its the fact i have no choice that gets me. I already pay for sky. It has enough channels for me!! Take the BBC off and I couldnt care less.

It is not mandatory / you do have a choice - don't watch television

I can kind of understand the frustration for people who spend money on satellite / cable packages, but then again how much a year do you spend on those? Is an extra £140 that big a proportion of your total entertainment spend? And do you honestly never watch *any* BBC programming at all?

[Rob_B]

It IS mandatory to watch TV, I don't wantch Sky movies, I don't pay /etc/etc (this has been done to death a million times though)
It's the choice thing for me, there is none, if I could choose to pay £140 or not & lose BBC services as a result then I'd seriously consider it.