[orf]

We have a national TV network which is an absolute national treasure and produces some awesome TV. The TV license just ensures that the government doesn't hold the purse strings and therefore effectively controls it. I'm happy to pay for a TV license for this reason. Also, lots of channels with no adverts on is pretty good.

As for the letters, just tell them you aren't eligible to pay. How do they know if you don't tell them?

For iPlayer, they are bringing in a BBC account which will be tied to your license fee, so you can't accidentally stream it.

[Fifer82]

National Treasure? It is literally state media, you only had to watch the BBC during the Scottish Indy Ref to show how far it will go to tow the government line. I think it is a disgrace so no longer have a licence. When Trump branded it FakeNews, people in the UK were outraged but it is one of the few things I agree with.

[orf]

Is there any specific criticisms of the indy ref coverage you can give? None of the major broadcasters where particularly unbiased, because nobody wanted to see the union break up.

Trump brands a lot of things fake news. They rarely are.

[pbhjpbhj]

>As for the letters, just tell them you aren't eligible to pay. How do they know if you don't tell them? //

Or they could stop accusing people of being criminals without any evidence.

I've had one of these letters and they start from a position of extreme prejudice against the recipient; it's not a pleasant reminder that you may need a license it's an accusation that you're a criminal and will get a big fine.

You have to pay to tell them you don't own a TV too, there's no freepost envelope and no freephone number. It's a small thing but given the aggressive nature of their accusation I refuse to pay even 40p to let them know we had no TV on the premises.

[cromon]

You can do it online.. no need to spend anything. Why not do that and stop the tree wasting yourself, as they aren't going to. You only need do it every 2 years or so.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/no-licence-needed/about.app

[gaius]

The TV license just ensures that the government doesn't hold the purse strings and therefore effectively controls it

Like they hold the purse strings and control every other channel?

The recent revelations of BBC presenters salaries reveals that they don't want to compete with other stations on a level playing field, but they do want to pay themselves competitive salaries. Well you can't have it both ways...

[orf]

The other channels are beholden to advertisers and only produce profitable content regardless of its value.

Also the BBC salaries for the most part are on-par with ITV and C4.

[gaius]

The whole point of the TV tax is that the BBC can take on projects that are "worthy" but not commercially viable. Why does it have big-name stars at all? Why is it competing for ratings at all? They want to have their cake and eat it is why.

Working for the BBC is a privilege; one of the few cases where people really should be doing it "for the exposure" and not paid at all.

[IeyePh7o]

Disclaimer: I am employed by the BBC, but not in PR, hence the throwaway

> The whole point of the TV tax is that the BBC can take on projects that are > "worthy" but not commercially viable. Why does it have big-name stars at all? > Why is it competing for ratings at all? They want to have their cake and eat > it is why.

No, the BBC has to compete against commercial content, and therefore has to pay to hire talent that is competitive with the talent hired by commercial broadcasters. There are good reasons for this:

- Making popular content that is of high quality increases the quality of commercial offerings, as it has to compete for viewers.

- If the BBC did not make popular content that most people want to watch, it would not be perceived as good value for money, and therefore you would lose the benefits of having a strong public broadcaster.

This is made clear in the charter:

"The BBC should provide high-quality output in many different genres and across a range of services and platforms which sets the standard in the United Kingdom and internationally."

> Working for the BBC is a privilege; one of the few cases where people really > should be doing it "for the exposure" and not paid at all.

Working for the BBC is a privilege, but if it did not pay its staff, it would not have any. There is a balance to be struck -- people are willing to work for less than they could be paid elsewhere, but if the difference is too big then they will leave.

The amount being paid to talent and execs is high, but at least in some cases is a lot lower than people are being paid on commercial channels, and therefore it is possibly justified.

[branchless]

Blair made it about ratings precisely to make the BBC an empty shell.

You should not have to compete for viewers. I agree with the other poster - the point is to have a guaranteed revenue stream so you can, frankly, make unpopular content. By definition if it is popular the private sector can fund this via advertising.

The charter is there to neuter the BBC. It has worked.

[IeyePh7o]

> the point is to have a guaranteed revenue stream so you can, frankly, make unpopular content

That is one point, and that is currently being done. If the BBC were only to make unpopular content, it would be unpopular, and people would not want to pay for it. It is supposed to be balanced in a way that benefits the public the most.

I can see the argument that the balance between making popular and unpopular content is not currently as good as it could be, but the model when looked at as a whole seems quite sensible.