Never ending harassment from TV Licensing

[jon0844]

How long until the BBC manage to get the law changed so that their TV Tax is collected via council tax bills or some other method to cut out on the people wising up to ditch the Tax and watch only on demand

Very long I should think, as it would mean people paying who didn't have a TV - which would be bang out of order.

If it was included in general taxation, it would then be pointless. Rather than do all the admin, the Government would simply pay a fixed amount each year.. and you know it would get cut year after year.

 

[DownSouth]

Very long I should think, as it would mean people paying who didn't have a TV - which would be bang out of order.

Why would that be any more out of order than any other taxpayer-funded service which only some people use but is still deemed worthy of being funded by everyone? What about (sacred cow alert) passenger rail which enjoys enormous subsidies and concessions, or a road upgrade on the other side of the country, or the UK's nuclear weapons which benefit only penis-waving politicians, or a medical system that benefits only sick people? Why not make the users of those services pay the full cost of provision and use the savings to fund the BBC instead?

If it was included in general taxation, it would then be pointless. Rather than do all the admin, the Government would simply pay a fixed amount each year.. and you know it would get cut year after year.

Funding the ABC out of taxation seems to work pretty well here in Australia. When averaged across the population, it costs $0.08 per day (about 5p) per person (yes, I know that the amount of tax paid is not equal across the population) for which we get three national TV stations, eight state/territory TV stations, five national radio stations, about 60 local radio stations, all radio stations available online as well as via radio, website/app content and the iView streaming service (I gather this is rather similar to the BBC's iPlayer service - the working relationship between the ABC and BBC has provided many mutual benefits over the years).

It's not just a blank cheque though, ABC radio and TV stations have an obligation to provide emergency information during disasters even if it means scrapping planned programming. As a person who has a number of close family members living in a bushfire danger zone, that alone would make money well spent for me even if I didn't use any ABC services at other times.

 

[Strathclyder]

Repeating what has been said already, just bin the letters and forget about them.

 

[bb21]

I concur with those who say just ignore them.

I had a visit from one of their "representatives" once a few years back. He was promptly told to hop along and he was not coming into the house under any circumstance. I have had no more visits since.

You cannot stop the letters. After a few years they will start sending them out again. I personally scan the letters for fun and then bin them. Looking at them, they go through some sort of "investigation opened - considering proceeding to court - really considering proceeding to court - we will provide you will more information, please buy a licence" then back to "investigation opened". God only knows how many investigations they have opened on my property over the years.

I would like to try Tibbs's method, but I refuse to provide them with any personal information, such as name and signature.

 

[W-on-Sea]

I just shred them, having (rarely) read them first if I am feeling interested to see what menacing but completely dishonest line they are taking this month.

 

[Greenback]

I ignored mine after one response to repeat the situation at the address (no occupier). Absolutely nothing happened except that I continued tog et automated letters saying the same thing over and over again.

 

[LBSCR Times]

My brother keeps getting letters, hasn't had a television since 1988.....
He just ignores them, and so far, has never had a visit from them yet.
He is of the opinion that he doesn't have to tell them he hasn't got a television.

 

[jon0844]

Correct. They have to prove he does, and they have no right to enter your home to check. They rely purely on you letting them in (perhaps because you feel that not doing so means you're hiding something - which of course they'll use as a justification) or admitting it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I get them about twice a month, I do not watch television and have no intention of paying for a licence I do not need.

Crapita have the contract for TV Tax enforcement, and we all know how ethical that particular company is. The "enforcement officers" are on commission and so they tend to lie as much as they can. But remember they can only enter your property with a warrant from a Magistrate, so they can safely be told to jog on.

I wouldn't waste my energy on buying a stamp and walking to the post office, much easier to just file their illiterate letters in the big green wheelie filing cabinet in the garden. It's a shame we can't really prosecute them for attempting to obtain money with menaces, but there you go.

With a bit of luck the BBC will have been closed down and sold off by the end of the decade.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Lots of unicasts.

The overwhelming majority of ISPs don't support multicast (bit like IPv6 really) so a multicast stream would most likely not get through to the majority of people wanting to watch iPlayer live.

In addition, iPlayer now supports custom timeshifting of the live feeds (up to two hours behind time) so a multicast feed wouldn't work for this at all.

Before iPlayer supported live streams (it may have been before iPlayer even existed actually) they did actually have multicast streams of a few channels available on their website. But as you said, a lot of ISP's do not support it and a lot of consumer networking hardware doesn't either.

 

[87 027]

Of those who don't need a TV licence I'd be interested to know the split between (1) don't watch any programmes whatsoever and (2) watch purely catch-up services over the internet. Both perfectly legitimate!

 

[Tibbs]

Of those who don't need a TV licence I'd be interested to know the split between (1) don't watch any programmes whatsoever and (2) watch purely catch-up services over the internet. Both perfectly legitimate!

I have a licence, but I don't watch live TV. If I do it's sport and I go down the pub. I listen a lot to the Radio, and would pay £100 a year just for In Our Time and Friday Night Comedy.

I'm a firm believer in Public Service broadcasting, and think that it should be supported.

 

[Flamingo]

With a bit of luck the BBC will have been closed down and sold off by the end of the decade.

To an Australian-American tycoon with the morals of a slug and the business ethics of a gangster, you mean? :roll:

 

[ExRes]

Can I suggest that if the letters have a return address on them you simply obliterate your own, circle the return address and pop it in the letterbox

I have two relatives that receive a Post Office pension so each and every item that is sent through the post keeps them from penury, each returned item should bring in the cost of a stamp so please, on their behalf, keep these letters circulating along with all the junk mail you can lay your hands on, it may also be the difference between keeping a delivery system and having to collect your mail from your local Amazon depot, wherever that may be

 

[tigerroar]

BTW, I'm a supporter of the fee and those that watch live TV should pay. Those than don't, shouldn't! End of.

Me too. Nothing like sitting down to watch something and the adverts come on. The license fee represents good value for money IMO.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can I suggest that if the letters have a return address on them you simply obliterate your own, circle the return address and pop it in the letterbox

I have two relatives that receive a Post Office pension so each and every item that is sent through the post keeps them from penury, each returned item should bring in the cost of a stamp so please, on their behalf, keep these letters circulating along with all the junk mail you can lay your hands on, it may also be the difference between keeping a delivery system and having to collect your mail from your local Amazon depot, wherever that may be

How does returning letters create revenue for the PO?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

How does returning letters create revenue for the PO?

Junk mail usually comes with a licence reply envelope in it; when that envelope is used the Royal Mail add the postage on it to the bill for whoever owns the licence. Needless to say, if whatever is posted in it is over 5mm thick then that'll upgrade it to the large letter rate as well....

So, this serves two purposes:

1) It helps keep the RM earning.
2) It hits the junk mailers in the pocket.

 

[Flamingo]

My standard response to junk mail, invites for bank loans, credit cards, save a blind whale in Africa etc is to rip it up, put it into the reply-paid envelope, and pop it in the postbox (conveniently located about 15 foot from my front door)...

 

[tigerroar]

Junk mail usually comes with a licence reply envelope in it; when that envelope is used the Royal Mail add the postage on it to the bill for whoever owns the licence. Needless to say, if whatever is posted in it is over 5mm thick then that'll upgrade it to the large letter rate as well....

So, this serves two purposes:

1) It helps keep the RM earning.
2) It hits the junk mailers in the pocket.

If they do have BRP envelopes then yes, but just returning a letter to the sender unopened doesn't.

 

[ExRes]

If they do have BRP envelopes then yes, but just returning a letter to the sender unopened doesn't.

Agreed, but even if the returned mail can't be charged for it still counts as posted mail and helps post(wo)men to keep their jobs, so we can at least put one positive in the list of reasons for the existence of junk mail

 

[tigerroar]

But it doesn't create any extra revenue that way does it so in effect it has a negative effect.

 

[ExRes]

But it doesn't create any extra revenue that way does it so in effect it has a negative effect.

Not such a negative effect to the staff as nationwide redundancies due to reduction in volume though, surely ?

 

[tigerroar]

There's no reduction in volume of mail. That is absolute bull****. Don't believe it. We are taking out as many letters on a daily basis as I've ever known.

Problem is, they are mostly ****e.

 

[deltic1989]

Junk mail usually comes with a licence reply envelope in it; when that envelope is used the Royal Mail add the postage on it to the bill for whoever owns the licence. Needless to say, if whatever is posted in it is over 5mm thick then that'll upgrade it to the large letter rate as well....

So, this serves two purposes:

1) It helps keep the RM earning.
2) It hits the junk mailers in the pocket.

On that basis, would it work if I wrapped up a house brick (or breeze block, or any other assorted building materials I have laying around) and sellotaped their envelope to it?

On the subject of TV Licencing: What a bunch of [insert insult here] they really are. I have had the misfortune of being confronted by their "inspectors" on a couple of occasions.
They seem to employ intimidation tactics to try to gain access to your house. I was once told by one of them that if I didn't let him in I would face an automatic £1000 fine.
The last one that came to my door was told that he could leave my property under his own steam, or I could assist him with my size 10's.
He left after making some very grave threats about returning with a warrant. It's been 6 months and I'm still waiting for him and his warrant to return.
I had only just moved in and didn't have the TV services plumbed in at the time. Now I have the services I have had to fork out for the licence.

 

[jon0844]

I do partially feel sorry for them, in that a great deal of people are probably watching TV and simply don't want to pay. And they'll obviously refuse entry too.

It's hard to tell the ones telling the truth and those that aren't, given the fact that there are no magic detector vans. Their only tool is trying to scare people into paying, or getting someone to slip up and give them the evidence they need for a warrant.

I happen to believe in the fee, so I pay... although I still had one of these idiots on my doorstep when I moved house (but some time after I'd transferred the license and got it at the new address).

He was obviously going door to door on the assumption that a lot of people having moved in might not have a licence - but not having any paperwork to know who did or didn't. [Just as the energy companies did, all claiming/lying to own the meters and to get me to 'just sign below' that I'd confirmed they'd been - as an incredible con trick to get me to switch supplier. Yes, npower and British Gas, I'm looking at you)

I was quite rude to the guy and told him to 'go away', and he threatened me with what could happen and coming back with a warrant etc, so I said fine.

I actually thought it quite funny that he went away thinking that he'd found someone without a licence (and my faked attitude implying I needed one) but obviously sod all happened.

The fact they'll even go after people WITH a licence makes it hard to have any sympathy for them - but at the same time, I do think anyone watching a TV live does need to pay, and there needs to be some way to make them do so.

At the moment, there is no way to do that. Those without the need for a licence feel harassed, while those who need one just ignore the letters and slam the door in the face of doorstep 'agents'.

Maybe general taxation is the answer, I don't know.

 

[Bald Rick]

On that basis, would it work if I wrapped up a house brick (or breeze block, or any other assorted building materials I have laying around) and sellotaped their envelope to it?
.

That certainly works for Freepost addresses, as UKIP learnt to their cost:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/people-are-wasting-ukips-money-by-sending-bricks-to-their-fr

Opponents of UKIP are sending hundreds of items, including bricks, to the party’s Freepost address in the hope of running up a massive postal bill for the party.
The Royal Mail service enables any member of the public to send anything to an organisation with a Freepost address, with the recipient picking up the bill.
When a similar protest hit Nottinghamshire Lib Dems the police said it was not a crime to send bricks to a Freepost address.
1. This is the basic principle of the protest.....

 

[Darandio]

That certainly works for Freepost addresses, as UKIP learnt to their cost:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/people-are-wasting-ukips-money-by-sending-bricks-to-their-fr

Opponents of UKIP are sending hundreds of items, including bricks, to the party’s Freepost address in the hope of running up a massive postal bill for the party.
The Royal Mail service enables any member of the public to send anything to an organisation with a Freepost address, with the recipient picking up the bill.
When a similar protest hit Nottinghamshire Lib Dems the police said it was not a crime to send bricks to a Freepost address.
1. This is the basic principle of the protest.....

Unfortunately, people then got stupid and started sending things such as blood and faeces, meaning the address was cancelled. For weeks before that, they were happily accepting bricks, returned lealfets etc. The best I saw was one mentioned in that link, where the guy sent a box of household junk.

 

[DownSouth]

I once disposed of an old PC (a desktop tower) to Metro Trains Melbourne in this manner after taking 85 minutes to cover six kilometres on one of their trains.

 

[Tetchytyke]

To an Australian-American tycoon with the morals of a slug and the business ethics of a gangster, you mean? :roll:

I don't really care either way. It could be a management buyout, just so long as they permanently lose the right to send someone to prison for watching their competitors.

If the BBC is so great they could make more money out of subscriptions than they ever would out of the telly tax.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do think anyone watching a TV live does need to pay, and there needs to be some way to make them do so.

The technology already exists, it's called a subscription. Seems to work for Rupert.

 

[ainsworth74]

If the BBC is so great they could make more money out of subscriptions than they ever would out of the telly tax.

They could also look at selling subscriptions to overseas markets as well. I imagine an IPlayer subscription would be quite popular in a number of foreign media markets...

 

[NSEFAN]

The technology already exists, it's called a subscription. Seems to work for Rupert.

How much of the BBC's competitors' funding is from subscriptions and how much is from advertising revenue? Would a subscription alone be able to cover the cost of the service and also be less than the TV licence? I doubt it, and it would upset a lot of people if ads started appearing on BBC 1!