You don't see any issues with forcing people pay for a service they will never use?
Really?
So...the TV Licence
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
You don't see any issues with forcing people pay for a service they will never use?
Really?
Just like most taxes then, does everyone uses roads, trains, buses, etc etc etc.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 2,188
- Location
- Edinburgh
Technology has overtaken the license model.
Gone are the days when BBC output was head and shoulders above everyone else. Companies like HBO are trouncing them
Just remove the license fee and force the BBC to run as a commercial concern on a subscription basis. You can maintain public service broadcasting through legislation as they do at the moment.
If they're really such good value people will continue to pay £140 a year for access won't they?
Gone are the days when BBC output was head and shoulders above everyone else. Companies like HBO are trouncing them
Just remove the license fee and force the BBC to run as a commercial concern on a subscription basis. You can maintain public service broadcasting through legislation as they do at the moment.
If they're really such good value people will continue to pay £140 a year for access won't they?
partly from general taxation, partly from subscriptions. For a few reasons: a)removal of the tv licence system will reduce the administrative cost b)the tv licence system was ok when only a portion had a tv, but most people do these days c)they need some incentive to produce better content.
I would say that those 'enforcement officers' are not producing anything of value, it would be better to be able to do away with those (tax-funded) jobs and use the same money for more productive, positive jobs.
I would say that those 'enforcement officers' are not producing anything of value, it would be better to be able to do away with those (tax-funded) jobs and use the same money for more productive, positive jobs.
Last edited:
It's their choice to pursue people who've asked them to stop chasing them time and time again.
Yes, maybe indirectly in a very few cases but yes. How do people think food gets to the shops? or coal to power stations for their electricity?
I know, my point was how much money they'd save if they didn't feel the need to harass people over having a TV License.
Ahhh in that case, if they were in that much trouble their directors wouldn't be on such stupid wages
Playing devils advocate, the BBC wouldn't be able to cajole enough tax revenue to justify its existence if it didn't play hard ball with licence fee collections.
EDIT: and what Hyburnate said. And random pay off's...
Last edited:
According to their figures "licence fee collection costs" £126m
I would choose option 3, turn it into advertising based like any other channel, if the ratings are good, the advertising revenue would also be good, just how the other free-to-air channels sustain themselves.
Of course we should, they are providing a service and a good service in some peoples eyes, however I am personally not going to pay it for a couple of reasons:
1) They're directors are on stupid wages and therefore they already have a lot of disposable income
2) I don't watch the TV anyway
3) I'm not legally required to pay it
4) They bully people into paying it
5) They provide a **** service in my opinion.
6) I don't use it
7) They call is a license 'fee' it should be a 'license invoice'
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Choice 1 for me.
I would take issue with your first point.
The Directors and senior staff at the BBC tend to be on a fraction of the wages of other broadcasters - IIRC the top two or 3 people at C4 (the other publicly owned PSB in the UK) get more than the top ten at the BBC.
And the likes of ITV's top guy (let alone Sky, or even the DM) get a wage that would pay for a huge chunk of the BBC's senior management.
Yes they get paid a lot compared to the national average, but compared to directors of similar size organisations, or even just other companies that require the same sort of skills* they are often very under paid (indeed it's not uncommon for someone to leave the BBC, move to another UK broadcaster and get an instant pay rise of 50-100% or more).
*It's slightly farcical that the DG of the whole of the BBC can often be on a lower wage than the heads of the smaller production companies that supply it with content.
Subscription please. I already pay a fortune for Sky, and VERY rarely watch anything on the BBC (never listen to BBC radio) but have to pay for the privilege.
Some sort of subscription, or PPV model would at least allow to pay for what I actually do watch, instead of £145 for pretty much nothing.
Some sort of subscription, or PPV model would at least allow to pay for what I actually do watch, instead of £145 for pretty much nothing.
Adverts or subscription please, they already advertise multiple ammount of crap shows in between shows anyways, what difference does it make if someone else is paying for it?
I begrudge being forced to pay this "fee" for a service I very rarely, if anytime use, I don't listen to the radio I use my ipod and CD's in the car, and when I do watch the TV it's usually sky programmes anyway, and now majority of the time its between Netflix and Lovefilm now anyways.
I begrudge being forced to pay this "fee" for a service I very rarely, if anytime use, I don't listen to the radio I use my ipod and CD's in the car, and when I do watch the TV it's usually sky programmes anyway, and now majority of the time its between Netflix and Lovefilm now anyways.