Sponsored Links

The Times Paywall Fail

I agree with Peejay

I am happy with the licence fee..tis worth it . . . . . .

It is only worth it if people can afford to pay for it & many people are struggling to do so. It is also unfair that if someone watches (say) just 1 hour of TV per day (or only commercial TV), & does not listen to the radio at all (like me), they still have to pay the same as heavy users of BBC services. :mad:

The £145.50 Licence Fee is exorbitant when you consider the 31,000,000 households in The UK. That means a total amount of about 4.5 BILLION POUNDS of Licence Fees are collected every year!

With the UK population being so high (62 million) and being the most densely populated in Europe too, the Licence Fee should be considerably cheaper than all other European countries except The Netherlands.
 
Last edited:
would it be fair to charge those of us who live in rural areas higher charges for receiving letters?

Sometimes I think we have to look at the wider picture and think of something as being a service for the whole population in which there is equal contribution....rather tahn wanting to put a price on everything!!

just my humble opinion ...

actually they already do... tho only if the stamp put on it wasnt enough, lm pretty sure there is a limit on size of envelope or something too but at least three times lve received mail "I" have had to pay for because the stamp wasnt enough.
 
Quite right - I've had the same here in the metropolis, in the glorious People's Republic of Brent.

(Oops - forgot - I'm not supposed to mention Brent nowadays, we still come under Brent Council, but with the parliamentary boundary changes I'm now in the constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn. That sounds so much better! :D)

Didn't have to pay mine though. Our postie may be rather incompetent (he sorts half the mail out on a garden wall across the road and drops a fair percentage of it in the process, so things get a bit messy on a wet day) but he's an extremely pleasant and helpful chap - the problem here is not the delivery guys, it's the sorting office, who appear to use the Grand Union Canal as an annexe.
I was out at the time, but he knows we're a fairly neighbourly lot here, so he rang next door's bell, and asked if they'd take it in for me.
They were happy to do so - but, of course, they weren't going to stump up the extra on my behalf, in case it was something that I hadn't asked for and would have rejected.
He wasn't in the slightest bit bothered about actually getting the cash - he'd made his point, drawn attention to the fact that the postage was insufficient, and that was enough for him, so he left it with them anyway.
:)
 
would it be fair to charge those of us who live in rural areas higher charges for receiving letters? . . .

Yes, it certainly would be fair to pay more to send (which I think is what you mean) mail that costs more to deliver. I would be glad of that, as I live in a mainly rural location & about 95% of the mail I receive, is unwanted "junk" mail. Anything that makes it too expensive to thrust rubbish through my letterbox, I regard as a GOOD thing. The problem for The Royal Mail, is that the system would be extremely complicated & expensive to run; everybody's postal costs would have to increase significantly to pay for it. So the present system is probably the best.

Regarding "Large Letter" stamp cost, any letters more than 5mm thick OR larger than 240mm long by 155mm wide, attract the Large Letter charge. So a 1st Class letter weighing no more than 100g, costs 41 pence & a Large Letter weighing no more than 100g, costs 66 pence. As a rough guide sizes up to C5 attract the Standard Letter rate & anything much bigger (such as C4) attracts the Large Letter rate.

If a letter is delivered that has insufficient postage paid, the receiver has to pay the Second-Class charge PLUS a £1 Handling Fee.

Regarding the TV Licence Fee, I believe that if it were more affordable &, if necessary, the BBC reduced the number of TV channels it broadcast, there would be little argument about it. The problems are, that the BBC tries to compete for ratings with everyone else, which is utterly ridiculous; it should serve the British Public, not seek to justifying paying its directors (et al) ever higher salaries.

The Licence Fee of £145.50 is a massive sum to ask people on tight budgets to pay every year:mad:. They already PAY for the commercial channels, so why should they be FORCED to pay for The BBC too, if they can't afford it & are prepared to forgo it? That is tantamount to extortion & is ranked barely better than private wheelclamping in my "book". It is not as if there are no other options.

The BBC could become a subscription service, or it could be funded from general taxation, for instance. Alternatively, it could be forced to reduce its Licence Fee to a set level (say £100 maximum), then it would have to fit that budget, just like the rest of us have to fit our own budgets!

Of course those people not on sub-£10,000 per year incomes, or those with higher incomes & large mortgages or other debts, are hit hardest. Those not in those categories can be excused for being so blinkered in their ideas; people usually only see things from their own financial perspective.
 
If you want to reduce the number of unwanted letters then the easiest way is to sign up with the mail preference service http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/ and inform the royal mail that you do not want to receive advertising!! . . . .

Thanks, but I've already done that, several times & it has made little or no difference. That is why my paper recycling box is by my front door. :laugh:

I still get lots of loose, full colour leaflets bundled with my normal mail & if marketing mail is addressed to "The Householder" or "The Homeowner" (for instance), it is still allowed to be delivered, even without a name or address. That is a loophole that is being used to circumvent the MPS service.

Also, the MPS service only lasts for 5 years & it then has to be renewed otherwise it is discontinued.
 
The Licence Fee of £145.50 is a massive sum to ask people on tight budgets to pay every year. They already PAY for the commercial channels, so why should they be FORCED to pay for The BBC too, if they can't afford it & are prepared to forgo it? That is tantamount to extortion & is ranked barely better than private wheelclamping in my "book". It is not as if there are no other options.

Don't talk rubbish. If you only want to watch commercial television, Sky is the obvious model. You wanna take the "I only watch ITV" argument, then you're gonna pay a damn sight more than the TV license fee.

The World Service, even in its current cut down version, still provides real, unbiased news to countries where there is no independent reporting. Also remember, just after Remembrance Day, that the Beeb transmitted messages to the resistance in occupied countries. I have worked abroad for many years and still, despite Blair, despite Afghanistan, people think the BBC is a GOOD thing. Only in the UK do we have politicians (and others) who want to rubbish something that we should be proud of.

Anyone wanna argue with that? Outside, now...
 
Sponsored Links
The Licence Fee of £145.50 is a massive sum to ask people on tight budgets to pay every year. They already PAY for the commercial channels, so why should they be FORCED to pay for The BBC too, if they can't afford it & are prepared to forgo it? That is tantamount to extortion & is ranked barely better than private wheelclamping in my "book". It is not as if there are no other options.

Don't talk rubbish. If you only want to watch commercial television, Sky is the obvious model. You wanna take the "I only watch ITV" argument, then you're gonna pay a damn sight more than the TV license fee. . . .
. . . . people think the BBC is a GOOD thing. Only in the UK do we have politicians (and others) who want to rubbish something that we should be proud of. . . .

1.
I didn't say that anybody "wanted to only watch commercial television".

2.
HOW do you expect people who cannot afford a TV Licence, to be able to afford SKY Television? I certainly cannot afford to pay for SKY; though my wife would love it if we could afford it.

3.
Watching "only ITV" won't cost anything more. It is already paid for when we buy the goods or services of companies who advertise on ITV (including items bought by non-ITV watchers :laugh: ).

4.
WHO said that The BBC was not a "good thing"? I certainly didn't; the BBC World Service radio news was the only unbiased news service I could receive when I lived in Northern Rhodesia/Zambia in the 1960's. Indeed, 50 years ago The BBC was the envy of countries all over the world and it provided a superior TV & Radio service unequalled anywhere else. What a shame the BBC has deteriorated so much; now only the BBC News is held in high regard.

I'm just saying that The BBC has got WAY out of control. It needs paring back & it needs to provide a service to the public, not a service to its overpaid directors, senior staff & self-aggrandizing talk-show hosts & "entertainers". The BBC should be affordable to all home owners & tenants. It should provide a VERY BASIC, TOP QUALITY service & leave all the other channels to broadcast all of the tripe; they will soon fill any gaps The BBC leaves behind.
 
Last edited:
tbh l agree with kansenji, the crap on the BBC just isnt worth my time any more.. yeah my family watches freeview.. but we havent watched any of the BBC channels in years because theres nothing but crap on them.

as for myself if l lived on my own l wouldnt watch any TV, all l need is the internet, l can find enough stuff to keep me entertained online without the need to watch TV.. however even then ld be forced to pay the TV licence, according to what lve been told and the letters l was sent just by being online l have access to BBC content so have to pay the licence fee for something lm not interested in and never watch anyways.. how fair is that? heh, its like paying for an internet connection but not getting it or ever wanting to use it.. pretty much paying for a service l neither want nor use but the law says l have to fork out money for it regardless.

if l had my way l would tell the BBC where to go because its pointless and l dont watch it so why should l pay for it.. and as kansenji said, why should l pay their overpaid salaries since l dont watch it?
 
tbh l agree with kansenji, the crap on the BBC just isnt worth my time any more.. yeah my family watches freeview.. but we havent watched any of the BBC channels in years because theres nothing but crap on them.

as for myself if l lived on my own l wouldnt watch any TV, all l need is the internet, l can find enough stuff to keep me entertained online without the need to watch TV.. however even then ld be forced to pay the TV licence, according to what lve been told and the letters l was sent just by being online l have access to BBC content so have to pay the licence fee for something lm not interested in and never watch anyways.. how fair is that? heh, its like paying for an internet connection but not getting it or ever wanting to use it.. pretty much paying for a service l neither want nor use but the law says l have to fork out money for it regardless.

if l had my way l would tell the BBC where to go because its pointless and l dont watch it so why should l pay for it.. and as kansenji said, why should l pay their overpaid salaries since l dont watch it?

You only need a licence if you watch live broadcasts over the net, other wise your fine.

Just one correction it pointless for you. For many others its not. Got to say I'm surprised there's absolutely nothing at all you watch on the BBC. Compared to say ITV it offers a greater range of programs from the pure silly entertainment unto really high brow arts stuff. There's also things like BBC Parliament where you can keep an eye on our so called democracy with no bias added to it unlike most news shows and papers.

Not to mention a lot of kids programs which arn't full of advertisements telling kids they must by x y and z!
 
actually your incorrect, at least in what lve been told and warned... according to the TV licencing ppl that visited us before warning us of fines the fact we had the internet meant we could "access" BBC content such as the website and the IPlayer.. and that the pure fact l read BBC news meant that l needed to pay the licence fee.. l admit to reading BBC news online but lve never used the IPlayer.

so in essence they stated if l can access the content there is a chance l will use it so basically lm being charged because there is a chance l will access the IPlayer and their website, this was the excuse used when l was still living in wales in an area where l was unable to get terrestrial TV due to bad signal due to trees, tho even then they tried to get us to pay the licence fee based upon the fact the equipment was there to receive it, however after they tested our signal they pushed us to pay the licence fee based upon our internet connection.

and as for other channels, l may watch channel one (formally virgin 1 l think) occasionally for the star trek eps but other than that l dont tend to watch any other channel since either there is more ads than good programming or there is nothing but crap on.
 
Ahh the TV Licence fee debate, perhaps that is best left to a separate topic please since this one is supposed to be about The Times Paywall :) .

PS - SeeSaw lets you view TV content without a licence.
 
Sponsored Links
See http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology-top8/ - they are talking a load of tosh.

TV Licensing is run by crapita at the moment and they are probably on commission for enforcement action.

Just some bad news - Channel One is going, shows may show up on Sky 3 but knowing Sky they'll probably take the most popular one and stick them back on a channel not shown on freeview.
 
Last edited:
Isnt this just their ongoing marketing ploy??
Put some decent programs on a free channel, wait long enough for people to get hooked, then move them to a pay channel and see how many viewers it spurs into signing up??

I havent turned my TV on since the Korean Grand Prix. I am definitely not getting my monies worth out of my license fee.
 
tbh its just one big con imho, they make programming for as cheap price as they can while trying to pocket a majority of the money they extort from us so they can pay themselves huge bonuses... lets face it any bonus they get is more than they are worth and likely more than anyone of us could make in a year or two..

as lve always said, theres one law for us poor and another for the rich who can always find loopholes to save themselves money, in fact l know one millionaire who was able to use legal aid by hiring an accountant to work it so he could... granted the guy was fighting for something l agreed with and won but still the rich have enough money as it is without using public money to fight their battles which they in essence dont exactly put much into.
 
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £24.00
132Mbps
Gift: None
Shell Energy UK ISP Logo
Shell Energy £26.99
109Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £27.99
145Mbps
Gift: None
Zen Internet UK ISP Logo
Zen Internet £28.00 - 35.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £15.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
YouFibre UK ISP Logo
YouFibre £19.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
BeFibre UK ISP Logo
BeFibre £21.00
150Mbps
Gift: £25 Love2Shop Card
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All

Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (5473)
  2. BT (3505)
  3. Politics (2525)
  4. Openreach (2291)
  5. Business (2251)
  6. Building Digital UK (2234)
  7. FTTC (2041)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1961)
  9. Statistics (1780)
  10. 4G (1654)
  11. Virgin Media (1608)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1451)
  13. Fibre Optic (1392)
  14. Wireless Internet (1386)
  15. FTTH (1381)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules