A few weeks ago I wrote about how I managed to wangle some money off my dad’s mobile phone bill because he wouldn’t be using the talk minutes that came with his contract. I saved him £120. A good result.
But what other bills are deaf people expected to pay for things that they don’t use? Where else can I save a bit of money for the big guy, I thought to myself.
It didn’t take long for me to come up with an idea… its the TV licence. But what are the reasons for picking on the TV licence as something that maybe deaf people shouldn’t have to stump up for?
The first argument I thought of was that TV programmes are not all subtitled and only a tiny proportion have signing.
BSL users have a pretty strong case for a sizable discount, however, those who use subtitles probably don’t. I did a bit of digging and found that the BBC subtitle 99.9% of programming across everything except the BBC Parliament channel. So, for those who use subtitles, asking for a discount based on the 0.01% of inaccessible programming isn’t going to work and if it did, the discount might not cover the cost of the stamp. Maybe a 10p rebate per mistake would do?
It’s a different matter for those who only access TV when its signed. Only 5% of TV is signed across the Beeb which, it could be argued, means the rest isn’t accessible. I think it would be hard to prove that the rest of TV wasn’t being accessed so its probably not a fruitful line of endeavour.
But maybe it’s not the TV licence we should be thinking about. What about the cost of subscription channels available on platforms such as Sky or Virgin. The accessibility rates for those channels are lower and some Sky services are not accessibe at all for deaf people. Sky do not subtitle their Go or On Demand services and these Ofcom results show that large tracts of their programming does not have subtitling when broadcast.
My dad hasn’t got Sky, so I won’t be troubling their customer service team about this issue, but from looking at the figures, I reckon 30% off the price of Sky TV would just about compensate for the un-subtitled programming.
Back to the TV Licence now. It doesn’t just pay for BBC TV stations, the fee also covers the cost of the BBC websites and radio stations too.
In fact, there are 59 BBC radio stations that deaf people won’t be listening to (or very few, at least) and it costs each deaf licence fee payer about £25 each per year to keep them on air.
Call me old fashioned, but I don’t think asking deaf people to pay for radio stations is fair. In fact, it’s bonkers. Blind people are entitled to 50% off their fee which means there is a precedent for discounting the licence fee based on accessibility. The amounts we’re talking about are not going to make anyone rich but in these straightened times, it all adds up and could keep the heating on at Christmas.
So the questions for you, the reader, are these. Should BSL users get a massive discount on the licence fee? Should all deaf people get a further discount on the licence fee because they can’t listen to the radio? And should all TV providers charge deaf people less to reflect the proportion of programming that isn’t accessible?
Your views in the comments please.
By Andy Palmer, The Limping Chicken’s Editor-at-Large.
Andy volunteers for the Peterborough and District Deaf Children’s Society on their website, deaf football coaching and other events as well as working for a hearing loss charity. Contact him on twitter @LC_AndyP (all views expressed are his own).
The Limping Chicken’s supporters provide: sign language interpreting and communications support (Deaf Umbrella), online BSL video interpreting (SignVideo), captioning and speech-to-text services (121 Captions), online BSL learning and teaching materials (Signworld), theatre captioning (STAGETEXT), Remote Captioning (Bee Communications), visual theatre with BSL (Krazy Kat) , healthcare support for Deaf people (SignHealth), theatre from a Deaf perspective (Deafinitely Theatre ), specialist lipspeaking support (Lipspeaker UK), Deaf television programmes online (SDHH), language and learning (Sign Solutions), BSL interpreting and communication services (Lexicon Signstream), sign language and Red Dot online video interpreting (Action Deafness Communications) education for Deaf children (Hamilton Lodge School in Brighton), and legal advice for Deaf people (RAD Deaf Law Centre).
wmager
July 11, 2013
The biggest issue would be standardisation – like you say, not all deaf people need BSL, not all use subtitles. A flat reduction for all deaf people would have to encompass those who have enough hearing to listen to the radio, but also rely on subtitles – through to BSL users whose only access to the BBC is via See Hear and the signed programmes.
I’ve done some sums on a post it note, and I’d say that perhaps a 25% reduction would be fair, if you were proposing a flat rate discount to cover everyone with some degree of deafness.
wmager
July 11, 2013
But then of course, reducing the licence fee for deaf people could lead to changes in the level of provision for deaf people. If deaf people aren’t paying for it…
Editor
July 11, 2013
I guess the fee should be set at a level that pays for the access – subtitles and sign language interpretation – but not for the bits only hearing people can access (radio, etc)?
Joe Healy
July 11, 2013
By the same token, maybe provision levels could be changed for blind people?
C Ward
July 12, 2013
I feel disappointed about all the great radio content i’m missing (by reputation) and It’s highly unlikely that anyone will invest in subtitling online radio (and received as comic when suggested).
deafmuse
July 11, 2013
Try broadband and TV packages that include LANDLINE as an integral part of that package. 10 people contacted me outraged Virgin media had charged them for an system they never use, and, proved contentional with many using faxes, who found they didn’t work after installing Virgin lines. So paying for an line they can’t or don’t use and finding another they did, now unusable.
Irene Winn
July 11, 2013
As a hard of hearing listener I have viewed your comments with interest. I make full use of the subtitles on free view but not all the programmes on free view are subtitled. I do not pay for free view, but I do pay for my licence. I agree that it would be very difficult to come up with a system that is fair to all people, but given that blind people get a discount, I believe it is only fair that deaf people have a discount. After all, Logie Baird invented the television so that deaf people could keep up with the news, because it wasn’t fair that blind people could listen to the radio news and deaf people couldn’t. Of course, it was such a brilliant idea that hearing people took it over. Perhaps it’s time that deaf people took it back?
deafmuse
July 11, 2013
The thing to do is lobby for radio access. Japan had an digital radio carrying captions of programs, i had it on my blog at the time. However the BBC has strict limits on deaf access, you have to prove over a period of time that 40,000 or more regularly watch or listen to a program, you would laugh if it wasn’t so totally unreasonable. Without access first you can’t do either. Anyway, the BBC says it cannot afford the access
Paul Redfern
July 11, 2013
I’d prefer to pay the full fee and get full access. For example I’d really like to get transcripts of some of the radio programmes. I think once you are on reduction packages, you are on a slippery slope with organisations claiming that if you don’t pay in full you don’t get full access which reduces our choices. That should be the aim – full access giving us the whole gamut of choices available to my hearing next door neighbour.
mrs_scholes
July 11, 2013
Some radio programmes are transcribed afterwards: http://faq.external.bbc.co.uk/questions/radio/radio_transcript
Of course I know this because I am hearie and heard about it on a Radio 4 programme!
I think the reduction of £25, in exchange for not using the radio, would be fair – but would discourage the transcribing (or translation into BSL??) of radio programmes. I agree these are difficult financial times, but perhaps we are all better off putting our campaigning energy and resources into other things – like Spit the Dummy Out. Only my thoughts! Feel free to disagree!
deafmuse
July 12, 2013
I’ve contacted the BBC radio stations on a regular basis to get transcripts of relevant broadcasts,especially programs relating to the DEAF, where we couldn’t follow. Why don’t deaf and HI charities involved in these radio programs insist on the access themselves ? AOHL/Hearing dogs for deaf and the BDA all participated in recent radios programs, NONE asked to make it accessible. Why have a dog and have to bark yourself….
C Ward
July 12, 2013
Does anyone know how much would it take out of the licence fee if deaf people had a £25 reduction in UK?
nathan
July 12, 2013
Will never happen.
apparently according to our glorious RNID. (whoops, Action on hearing loss) says there is 10 million people with hearing loss.
If 10 million people got 25% off the license fee, the BBC will be broke.
Smarty
July 12, 2013
I think its fair for deaf people to pay the full fee. The BBC invests a lot of money into subtitling. If we pay the full fee then we have a greater right to good quality access.
I know I’m being hypocritical (as I have done it in the past) here but I do get a bit tired sometimes of fellow deafies constantly seeking freebies and discounts especially when they when they can afford to pay.
Oh Dear
July 13, 2013
A few years ago, around £32 per licenCe fee was spent on Radio. Deaf people should get a reduction.
A family who has a child/adult who is blind gets concession, never mind the fact that the rest of the family can still see.
Hence why i never paid TV licence for over 20 years until a man with a badge came knocking on my door.
jess
August 1, 2013
i think deaf people should get a reduction in their t.v licence as if they cant hear the radio stations then why pay for it? if their are no subtitles on some t.v channels..yet again cant use it..don’t want it..even if it was 10% it would be better than nothing. if blind people can get a discounted rate then why cant deaf people???
Jason sagaran
September 13, 2013
How did u get money off the mobile bill I am too paying 47 a month but never use the calls as deaf
Editor
September 13, 2013
Ask them if they have a tarriff for people who don’t talk on the phone due to deafness. If they don’t ask for a discount because they’re making you pay to much for something you don’t use
Jason sagaran
September 13, 2013
Wow that was fast I have been trying but they don’t want to know I’m with Vodafone
Anthony
May 23, 2014
Smarty. You are wrong. BBC is corrupted.Not all BBC programmes have subtitles. For example, at 5am, BBC One , news don’t have subtitles till 6am.How many times subtitles fail during programme but the stories carry on whereas if sound or picture quality fails, the stories stop. Double standard BBC.Stupid name to be called Smarty.
Jason Sagaran
May 23, 2014
Yes I think they should I’m hard of hearing
Pete
August 22, 2014
I want to watch bbc extra via the red button but can’t because they have no subtitles
Anthony Mitchell
May 13, 2015
In the US subtitles known as closed captioning (CC) is on virtually all TV program. It is also included on their on demand services like Hulu and CBS. If it is already being subtitled before it comes to the UK how difficult is it continue doing so here. The US also provide Spanish subtitles (and sometimes audio) on its channels as well!
Rob Stott
April 18, 2016
I’m hard of hearing and on pension I don’t mind paying for the licence but the subs are a joke they freeze but the program keeps going they don’t keep up with program when they try its so fast u can’t read it. I put it on slow takes 2hrs to see 1 hr program .
Who runs the BBC is it tommy Cooper