Actually in broadband terms it would be more like getting charged for daily for broadband and you start paying in the middle of the month for the broadband date that starts on 1st of the month. So, you pay 15 days in advance and 15 days in arrears. However, most broadband providers charge 1 month in advance.

If you aren't doing monthly DD for TV license then I believe you pay a whole year in advance. So, by my reckoning paying 6 months in advance is better than a year in advance?

In reply to a post by ian72:

If you aren't doing monthly DD for TV license then I believe you pay a whole year in advance. So, by my reckoning paying 6 months in advance is better than a year in advance?

Like I say, in today's day and age pretty much no company charges annually up front unless a discount is offered for doing so. So I believe TV Licensing has no justification in doing this.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Like I say, in today's day and age pretty much no company charges annually up front unless a discount is offered for doing so. So I believe TV Licensing has no justification in doing this.

Tell that to DVLA

Insurance companies too (especially for cars)� IME those that allow you to pay monthly add a premium for the privilege.

Seems standard practice in the insurance industry who mostly charge more if you want to spread the payments? Sky TV, broadband etc generally charge a month in advance (so the difference here is the length of advance rather than the practice).

And whilst it is slightly odd to do 6 months in advance of DD I seem to remember when I switched that instead of getting charged a year in advance at the anniversary I was charged 6 months in advance and then the DD started. So, from my perspective my initial outlay was lowered and that took me onto monthly payments. The only time then that it makes a difference is if I wish to cancel at which point a refund would be needed - but that would be the same position as if I had paid a year in advance. I see why people don't like it but in the end it doesn't seem that big an issue (and perhaps by collecting those the money gains interest and therefore reduces the overall cost of the fee that is charged?)

In reply to a post by ian72:

Sky TV, broadband etc generally charge a month in advance (so the difference here is the length of advance rather than the practice).

Yeah, the "default length of advance payment" is the issue here, since it somewhat justifies the six month advance payment for monthly DD customers.

My main comparison base was with other television services, e.g. Sky TV, but I accept other industries (e.g. insurance companies) may do things differently in terms of the default length of advance payment.

Caffeine top-up overdue Bill?

Charging more for monthly is identical to giving a discount for annual.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Charging more for monthly is identical to giving a discount for annual.

Not really- as Oliver implies, not if the default is annual (which it usually is).

Technically, that is not a change, as you already DO need a licence to watch programmes on iPlayer at the same time they are broadcast. The only exemption is if you only EVER watch catch-up, not in real time.

The fact they have no way of monitoring it at the moment doesn't mean people who choose to exploit it aren't still licence dodgers. You are required to have a licence, and recently that has been made explicit when you watch iPlayer.

I don't have a functioning TV receiver at the moment, so I'm watching everything on iPlayer. I did the decent thing, and paid for my licence as usual. Partly because I may fix or replace the TV at any time, and want to be covered, but partly because, even if I don't, I know I will not realistically confine myself only to catch-up, and will sometimes want to watch programmes as they are aired.

Perhaps you think it's silly to pay, if they have no way of checking? But that would be like saying it's silly not to shoplift, if you know you won't be caught.

T.

TV licence should be abolished. TV licence is wrong and out of date. Biased BBC should use subscriptions like sky does.

iplayer is basically a catch-up service, not live TV streaming so TV licence is not applicable or should it be.

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/petition/

In reply to a post by superspeed:

TV licence should be abolished. TV licence is wrong and out of date. Biased BBC should use subscriptions like sky does.

iplayer is basically a catch-up service, not live TV streaming so TV licence is not applicable or should it be.

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/petition/

Subscriiption or Licence essentially the same. Means of payment to view.
Try and watch Sky catch up services without a subscription