BBC licence fee could be means tested everyone pays regardless of whether or not they own a telev

ron3003 said:
Doesn't bother me as I've always paid the licence.
Click to expand...

Which is fine, as I assume you watch TV.

Would it not bother you if you still had to pay it even if you didn't watch TV and had no interest in doing so?

What about having to pay for broadband internet even if you didn't have a connection?

Or for a couple of pints of beer every week even if you don't drink?

Or a subscription to "Bridal Magazine UK" even though you're not planning on getting married?
 
Adsta said:
tbh the UK is stuck behind the times with stuff like this. Well not stuck behind the times but companys will make the most of "free" income given to them under government rule. It's stupid. Same goes for the whole line rental thing to have internet.... even if you do not want a landline phone and JUST want internet, you still got to pay BT for that line rental because well you know.... BT own the line. It's so stupid.

When I lived in Brussels they had none of this. If you wanted TV services you paid for it, if you did not want TV services you did not pay for it. Simples. Same for internet, you want internet you pay for internet, you do not need to pay for a line rental just for the privilege of having internet thrown on top of your bill.
Click to expand...

BT phone line thing is dumb, I don't understand why it has increased from £13 to £18. Surely that should be going down not up.
 
adolf hamster said:
The BBC is ad-free, which is something to consider over the dreariness of watching a 1.5 hour film last 2 hours because it has to have an ad break badly edited in to it every 5 minutes.QUOTE]

To be bluntly honest I would rather watch the adverts than watch the brain numbing BBC irregardles of the bad editing in between adverts. Adverts gives me time to make a cup of tea, and strectch my legs preventing DVT :D

Watching BBC makes me feel tired, in a state of boredom, and in a state of coma which leaves me dribbling from the corner of my mouth !!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
if they're going to fund it with a sort of tax then they should just take the funding out of general taxation... but before they do that - they should bring in advertising and self fund more of it

There is perhaps good reason for the state to own the news service, BBC parliament, world service etc.. and maybe some documentaries etc..

There is no reason why the likes of eastenders and radio 1 etc.. can't be produced under a commercial model

you could massively slash the TV license fee or cost to the tax payer if the tax payer only paid for the news and world service... the rest of it should be funded from advertising like any other station
 
dowie said:
if they're going to fund it with a sort of tax then they should just take the funding out of general taxation
Click to expand...


The BBC should not be funded through general taxation. Commercial business venture is suffice for the BBC to function. All other television companies are able operate through this commercial venture. There is no reason as to why the BBC can not.
 
Last edited:
People in this country don't appreciate the fact that we have a news corporation that isn't paid for by advertisers and open to bias reporting, I'm happy to pay £12 a month to stop us going the way of America
 
Roar87 said:
People in this country don't appreciate the fact that we have a news corporation that isn't paid for by advertisers and open to bias reporting, I'm happy to pay £12 a month to stop us going the way of America
Click to expand...

So therefore the license fee can be abolished and if you wish to continue paying the BBC then this would be PP. Why should I appreciate the BBC is not funded by advertising ?

Channel 4 is a prime example of a worthy TV company that produces excellent
programmes and is commercially viable due to advertising.
 
Roar87 said:
People in this country don't appreciate the fact that we have a news corporation that isn't paid for by advertisers and open to bias reporting, I'm happy to pay £12 a month to stop us going the way of America
Click to expand...

No, instead it's paid for by the government.

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure which is better/worse?
 
Haha, love the sexist slant on prosecutions for non-payment! :D

However, he will be highly critical of the fact that women are bearing the brunt of criminal prosecutions.
The report will say that women are more likely to face court action for non-payment because they are more likely to be at home when licence fee inspectors come calling.
Click to expand...
 
It is such a security risk to have tvl knocking on doors and entering houses. A rapist dream to be able to do that. I wouldn't let a stranger in my house. They could easily drug me and rape me, even more likely with women and single moms at home with children. There should be no one knocking on doors asking to enter the house on this day and age.
 
scrap the license, make them have adverts, why should i pay the bbc when all i want to watch on tv is Dave every now and then and the odd film on sky movies...
 
div0 said:
Haha, love the sexist slant on prosecutions for non-payment! :D
Click to expand...

And many are more likely to give in to bullying!

Find it disgusting really that this licence fee concept is being considered.
Forcing you to pay for entertainment? How is it even enforceable?
 
CyZMyAssBaby said:
The BBC should not be funded through general taxation. Commercial business venture is suffice for the BBC to function. All other television companies are able operate through this commercial venture. There is no reason as to why the BBC can not.
Click to expand...

I've just given you one reason in the bit you didn't quote...

the world service

am happy for the rest of it to be funded commercially but govt funding for something that is there to promote UK interests is quite reasonable and it isn't feasible to fund it commercially (at least not directly)
 
dowie said:
I've just given you one reason in the bit you didn't quote...

the world service

am happy for the rest of it to be funded commercially but govt funding for something that is there to promote UK interests is quite reasonable and it isn't feasible to fund it commercially (at least not directly)
Click to expand...

This is a fare point, and of which if the UK goverment wishes to fund. But this should not be done through TV licensing. The general public have a right to choice. If UK interests wish to be applied abroad then this can be through the appropriate goverment deaprtment which is funded through general taxation.

Albeit the commercial advatages that can be brought to countries around the world through commercial advertising therfore will fund the BBC broadcasting interests abroad. taking into account the license fee pays for these staff news offices around the world. As far as I am concerened this adds even more reason as to the BBC should be commercialised through commercial advertising. Taking into account the viewers and radio listeners around the world do not have to pay the BBC license fee. The UK resident is funding the world population who use BBC services through the £145.00 license fee.
 
Last edited:
just let people subscribe and include iplayer in the sub

no sub..no streaming

then people who want to watch will and those who dont wont have to pay
 
I'm not sure where i stand on the whole thing. I do pay the licence fee as we use their services a fair bit, I like the fact that there are no adverts also.

Now one thing i will say its interesting to see a company talk about itself with the public in phone ins etc and letting people completely **** them off (like on 5 live this morning) discussing this.

Now i cant say I've ever seen such self criticism happen on other channels, I guess that's what happens when you have to whore yourself for every $.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom