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

MatsyLR said:
I can never quite understand this.
You do realize you don't need one right? you are not obliged to have one unless you get tricked into AGREEING to have one.
There is nothing in law which says you have to have a TV license.
Its a fee designed to target the ignorant and vulnerable (old people)
Click to expand...

Not paying for the licence and meeting the criteria where you should != Not needing it and not paying for it.

I would not be happy doing the former.
 
spudbynight said:
Seems a pretty compelling argument against the BBC to me....imagine a world without Lenny Henry!
Click to expand...

LH Awful in the drama the syndicate but they all were...bbc drama of the worse quality...however...

Get quality writers in and actors and you get dramas like Happy Valley...compelling flawless TV
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
All you lot talking about Netflix...it's good but not that good...a lot of the stuff is naff...

We need the BBC ...it's part of our culture...we need public service broadcasting....we need cutting edge documentaries...or we can watch worlds worst weather on channel 5

As for garbage like the voice ..it has to compete with Itv....that's it...strictly may not be your cup of tea but it's massive...

I would rather have a few shows I hate on the BBC that I don't have to watch than an itv model using adverts ...were content is predominately made for profit.

Sky is ******* ***** and yet people are willing to pay 50 quid plus per month.....I ditched sky and will never go back....sky users are chumps paying for TV twice !!!!!

Freesat is where it's at...

The cost of the BBC and it's model is outdated of course due to the Internet...and fragmented consumption leading to personal narrowcasting....I predicted this in a university essay a decade ago and got a 1st so I know what I'm talking about.:p

I'll still keep subbed to this thread....as the chumps are coming out of the woodwork with daft commends and it's entertaining me on my day off having morning coffee.
Click to expand...

Did...you...use...full...stops..the...same..way..in..your...dissertation...as..you did...for this...post?
 
Me and my other discussed last week about paying it anymore . I no longer watch any television , not enough time to enjoy anything that is on . The other has nothing of intrest and works long hours . The only thing that ever is played on the TV are streams of movies from the NAS For the other half or my sons cartoons on freesat which are easliy sourced to stream anyway. I only had one thing on a Sunday evening to watch and that was top gear... So we're not getting any value from it whatsoever . This move doesn't surprise me as less and less people I've spoken to over the Years about the matter seem to pay it .
 
Also they get around £3.7b from TVL revenue, against the amount of households in the country the max they can achieve is £3.85b...

I don't see how its a failure even now?
 
Abraham said:
So despite singing it's praises you're essentially using a loophole to not pay for the content that you're consuming :confused: significantly less than £20 a month, so if you think that's paltry why aren't you paying it?
Click to expand...

Correct, I buy the box sets I enjoy and I watch things on Iplayer on occasion ( perhaps each few months ) and fully support the ideology of the BBC and do not watch live TV.

I have no legal or logical requirement to pay the licence fee so until I need to why should I bother?

Perhaps it is wrong on some level, but at the same time I support many other things I do not provide money to on a regular basis the BBC is no different in that respect.
 
dl8860 said:
I love the bbc, £145.50 a year is an absolute bargain
Click to expand...

That's not the point is it, the point is you have to pay it if you never ever watch anything.

If I pushed a magazine through your door every week that you didn't want and at the end of the year demanded you pay me £145.50 would you call that a bargain.?
 
Won't the BBC just die already? They have nothing worth watching yet they want me to pay for it anyway? Even worse, when they do shows they use a pitiful budget which is embarressing - Robin Hood? Merlin? man those were some cheap ass budgets.
At this point BBC should have adverts because they are most likely the only things that would be worth watching
 
Last edited:
asteldian said:
Won't the BBC just die already? They have nothing worth watching yet they want me to pay for it anyway? Even worse, when they do shows they use a pitiful budget which is embarressing - Robin Hood? Merlin? man those were some cheap ass budgets.
At this point BBC should have adverts because they are most likely the only things that would be worth watching
Click to expand...

:D:D:D:D
 
easyrider said:
Sky is ******* ***** and yet people are willing to pay 50 quid plus per month.....I ditched sky and will never go back....sky users are chumps paying for TV twice !!!!!
Click to expand...

How exactly is Sky ****?

How are the customers 'chumps' for paying for the content they want to see? Freesat is alright for free, but it can't touch Sky for content.

By all means call it expensive, as it is, but as above the wealth of content (sport is what I mainly watch) is worth it in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
I don't have my TV plugged in to an aerial, don't watch live broadcasts and only watch Netflix...
There'll be no TV license paying from me.

Unaware of any good shows that the BBC have, suppose Top Gear might get decent with the shake-up, but YouTube offers infinitely better car shows.
 
asteldian said:
Won't the BBC just die already? They have nothing worth watching yet they want me to pay for it anyway? Even worse, when they do shows they use a pitiful budget which is embarressing - Robin Hood? Merlin? man those were some cheap ass budgets.
At this point BBC should have adverts because they are most likely the only things that would be worth watching
Click to expand...

Are you ten?

BBC is a lot more than Saturday night TV dramas...:rolleyes:
 
StriderX said:
'Content' is a very... strong word for most of sky's offering.
Click to expand...

Agreed...I had sky...I saturated sky arts...and then all the shows just get played over again.

Sky is crap...

If you're a sports fan then unfortunately you have to sell your soul to Murdock in order to watch anything.

I think the statistics of sky viewers are staggering the majority watch free to air channels more than anything else.

And are mostly on the basic package.
 
edit....people even justify the monthly cost for sky by talking about how Good the gui is ffs...

It's sad.


I have a 3x Humax HD 1000 boxes and the gui is great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom