£14:95 pay-per-view.

[An Ankoù]

Nobody forces anyone in the UK to watch TV, whatever is available, from whatever source. But although we are 'blessed' with a seemingly infinite number of channels, what is actually worth watching can usually can be condensed into about 2 to 3 hours of viewing per week, and for many that includes football.

And for the rest, that means diddly-squat.
I think you have to pay a license fee, though, just for having a TV set in the house, regardless of whether you watch it.

 

[Norfolk79]

I think the trouble with their pricing is that iFollow with championship clubs, games are £10 each (probably as they actually need the money) so obviously the premier league clubs had to price it higher as it’s obviously a “better” product!

 

[DavidDetroit]

I learned long ago that getting a full cable subscription wasn't worth it since I literally watched three channels out of 80-100 available. We still needed the internet for work at home though and we overpay for that.
If I want to watch a specific American NFL and College game/team, I would need to buy at least three, different monthly streaming subscriptions. The people who own the rights to these broadcasts are definitely not customer friendly.
So I end up only watching the free, digital antenna game here and there.

 

[terrym]

And for the rest, that means diddly-squat.
I think you have to pay a license fee, though, just for having a TV set in the house, regardless of whether you watch it.

As I understand it a UK TV license is legally required by any household that tunes in to any programme content sourced from the outside world. Most of the fee will go to the BBC, although there are moves in hand to partally decriminalise non payment of the fee.
Other than that there seems to be slow but increasing criticism of the BBC, including value for money it offers and political bias amongst other things, and this may in the end lead to a change in how it functions, perhaps meaning pay per view or advertising funded. However it seems to me the BBC is very much an embedded institution in the UK and major change will be difficult to initiate, and is unlikely to occur any time soon, however justified that may actually be.

 

[Richie_asg1]

I thought about not paying for a licence so I researched what you are actually paying for.
The law states that if you install a TV set in your property then you must pay for a licence. That is it in Law. However the offence is for watching BBC programmes as they are transmitted. The TV licencing company is wholly owned by the BBC, and so it is their job to collect the payments. These are then sent to another government department who bankroll the BBC.
But it could easily be argued that this is a monopoly, as the government department that collects the money that people have to give for the licence - only funds the BBC, and nobody else. By rights they should equally fund all the other UK TV stations, and not just one corporation - which is a private company.
So all it would take is a complaint with enough people behind it saying that the TV licence should go to other TV stations and not just the BBC (including foreign stations that we can get via satellite)- or that we shouldn't have one at all.
But this would likely end up with no more BBC, and the licence fee going up even more. The system is corrupt but I don't see our government giving up a source of tax so easily.

 

[dad_of_jon]

I'm happy with freeview* rather than Sky, BT or VM. I use my vpn for everything else. The american commercials are entertainment themselves.
I don't care much for the big 3's greedy pricing structure.

* - I'd not even bother with that but mrs DOJ watches doctors so I have to endure it.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Nobody forces anyone in the UK to watch TV, whatever is available, from whatever source.

If you want to watch your team you have to pay this didn't used to be the case as before sky took it off terrestrial TV it was free therefore if you want to watch your favorite sport and cannot afford to see it live you are forced to pay or neve watch then again legally.

 

[An Ankoù]

If you want to watch your team you have to pay this didn't used to be the case as before sky took it off terrestrial TV it was free therefore if you want to watch your favorite sport and cannot afford to see it live you are forced to pay or neve watch then again legally.

Discraceful. When I returned from Oz in the late 60s, trying to get my head around soccer, all (or many of) the first division matches were routinely broadcast and because my dad supported Leeds, although I'd never heard him mention it before, I followed them in black and white Until I found better things to do. I still don't get this almost religious obsession with football teams. Gave up religion at about the same age as I recall. Both got relegated I think.

 

[terrym]

I thought about not paying for a licence so I researched what you are actually paying for.
The law states that if you install a TV set in your property then you must pay for a licence. That is it in Law. However the offence is for watching BBC programmes as they are transmitted. The TV licencing company is wholly owned by the BBC, and so it is their job to collect the payments. These are then sent to another government department who bankroll the BBC.
But it could easily be argued that this is a monopoly, as the government department that collects the money that people have to give for the licence - only funds the BBC, and nobody else. By rights they should equally fund all the other UK TV stations, and not just one corporation - which is a private company.
So all it would take is a complaint with enough people behind it saying that the TV licence should go to other TV stations and not just the BBC (including foreign stations that we can get via satellite)- or that we shouldn't have one at all.
But this would likely end up with no more BBC, and the licence fee going up even more. The system is corrupt but I don't see our government giving up a source of tax so easily.

There is no reason why the license fee system cannot continue. However it would only be used to fund capital projects for and maintenance of national infrastructure needed to transmit radio and TV, similar to the standing charge used on gas and electricity bills, which is levied irrespective of consumption. The BBC would be decoupled from the fee and have to separately fund itself, by whatever means necessary. I don't think the vast majority of people would object to that, the exception to that being obvious loading for a tax revenue source similar to the UK vehicle tax which far outstrips the amount spent on the nations crumbling road infrastructure. But that's another story

 

[DavidHatton]

I am a fanatical Liverpool fan but i refuse to pay 14-99 to watch them on top of what i already pay, as Guy Martin ( very fast motor cycle rider) said its 22 blokes kicking a ball round in a field in their underpants

Like wise, the recent match against Sheffield Utd, was on the ppv channel, I just watched Redmentv commentary on youtube, quite entertaining... big game sunday!!

 

[DavidHatton]

The weekend when Usyk fought Chisora, there was two ppv games, so in theory on top of you £22 sports subs, you would have to pay an extra £14.95 x2 and I think it was £19.95 for the boxing, totalling £49.85 extra...

 

[Binkei Huckaback]

I thought about not paying for a licence so I researched what you are actually paying for.
The law states that if you install a TV set in your property then you must pay for a licence. That is it in Law. However the offence is for watching BBC programmes as they are transmitted. The TV licencing company is wholly owned by the BBC, and so it is their job to collect the payments. These are then sent to another government department who bankroll the BBC.
But it could easily be argued that this is a monopoly, as the government department that collects the money that people have to give for the licence - only funds the BBC, and nobody else. By rights they should equally fund all the other UK TV stations, and not just one corporation - which is a private company.
So all it would take is a complaint with enough people behind it saying that the TV licence should go to other TV stations and not just the BBC (including foreign stations that we can get via satellite)- or that we shouldn't have one at all.
But this would likely end up with no more BBC, and the licence fee going up even more. The system is corrupt but I don't see our government giving up a source of tax so easily.

You do not need a television licence to install a television, only to watch television or to use certain catch-up services. I had a television set for several years with no licence, because I genuinely only used it to play computer games.

The TV licence is a licence, not a tax.

TV Licencing does not collect the licence fee from licence fee payers. Capita, the Post Office and others do it.

The BBC is not 'bankrolled' by the government, it is payed for by the licence fee.

How is the system corrupt?

Rather than the the licence fee being shared among all broadcasters, how about abolishing it and make all broadcasters pay a levy to fund the BBC? That would be a far better way to do things.

Do you know what you get for your licence fee?

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Do you know what you get for your licence fee?

I watch BBC T.V more than any other channel i also listen to 5 live many hours a day when at work and i use their website at just over £10 per month i don't consider it bad value for money and i would rather pay it than have to listen to adverts especially on the radio (i could record TV and skip adverts if it came in) i never listen to commercial radio for this reason.

What does your licence fee pay for?

The income from the licence fee means all licence payers can enjoy an ever wider choice of BBC programmes and services on TV, radio and online including:

• Nine national TV channels plus regional TV services
• Radio stations - 10 pan-UK, six national and 40 local
• BBC website
• BBC iPlayer
• BBC Sounds – including radio and podcasts
• BBC World Service - TV, radio and online
• Other apps and online services like Bitesize, CBeebies, BBC Three, Food, News, Sport and Weather.

All free at the point of use, on a wide range of platforms and devices.

By buying a licence you support the creation of BBC programmes and services, and new ways of bringing them to you. Our purpose is to ensure as much of the fee as possible goes towards funding them.

Even though the ways we watch and listen are changing, the licence fee also allows the BBC's UK services to remain independent and free from commercial advertising.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check...:text=The income from the licence,BBC website

 

[Cwrw666]

You do not need a television licence to install a television, only to watch television or to use certain catch-up services.

True. I haven't watched TV since I left my parents home back in the 70s, but have had a TV since the 90s and only use it for DVDs. So no TV license required.
Did occasionaly watch Dr Who on the internet until they changed the law so you needed a license. Never watched it since.

 

[An Ankoù]

I get all the UK channels here via astra with no real way of paying for a TV license. Not that I would, as the only thing I ever watch, and that's rarely, is Channel 4 News. The Wise One somehow manages to watch Andrew Marr on a Sunday, but she has a stronger stomach than I. On the other hand, if I wanted to watch French Terrestrial TV in the UK, which is easily available by satellite, I'd have to have a decoder fitted with an access card. Indeed, I have to do that here as we have a very poor terrestrial signal via a UHF aerial. The card costs about 3 or 4 euros and is renewable every few years. I wonder why the BBC doesn't use a similar system for satellite viewers, there must be literally millions of Brit imigrants accessing it via satellite.

 

[Binkei Huckaback]

I wonder why the BBC doesn't use a similar system for satellite viewers, there must be literally millions of Brit imigrants accessing it via satellite.

Can you imagine how The Daily Mail and its readers would react to such a 'waste' of money? Mind you, they're all for stopping imigrants and foreigners having access to anything for free.

 

[Richie_asg1]

Communications act 2003, 363
"
363Licence required for use of TV receiver
(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—

(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or

(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,

is guilty of an offence."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4
Installation is specifically mentioned.

 

[Binkei Huckaback]

I think installation in this case means connection of an aerial. I know the law changed from needing a licence to own a TV to needing a licence to use a TV to recieve television. I checked beforehand.

 

[Cwrw666]

The letter you get from the licensing people every couple of years specifically has a category of owning a TV but only using it for DVDs or as a computer monitor as a specific exemption.

I could wallpaper the entire house with all these letters we've had over the years.

 

[davidm]

Assuming that you don't need a monstrous screen - a computer monitor and internet access will avoid the licence issue