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

mattyfez said:
Utter nonsense, 50 years ago I may have agreed with you.

Under this model 'Poor working class people' would still be forced pay for it through general taxation, the only thing that's changed is it would take people's choices away, they may decide what little money they have is better spent on more important things, especially when basic adsl broadband cost hardly any more, and supplies, let's face it, pretty much the entire history of human knowledge, and millions if not billions of sources for current affairs.

To think one source of data is better than a potentially Infinite source is absurd.

If you were to argue that 16meg adsl should be taxed, and free to use... then you might have a better argument.
Click to expand...


It's this blinkered vision you have...some of my students don't have the Internet at home let alone a PC...

Your making a massive generalisation based on the majority of home users that have Internet access

Well let me tell you that's BS yet again.

Some parts of society ..the poor...the elderly...the remote places don't have computers or Internet...

Fact.

I have to make sure my learning resources are accessible offline to follow equality and diversity remits.
 
[TW]Fox;28317613 said:
It's fairly likely to be true though.

I would imagine if you asked 100 people whether in the last year they had watched a BBC television show, used the BBC website or heard any BBC radio station almost all of them would say yes.

Plus don't forget the important contribution the BBC makes in providing yet something else for the anti-everything brigade to whinge about.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't know anyone who isn't exposed to BBC services in some form or other at least once a year. In fact even if I actively tried to avoid it I would likely get caught out by the radio in a cafe / vehicle / barbers or whatever. Even some people who don't routinely visit the BBC website probably end up following links to it every now and then.

However the small print on the 97% quote says 'each week' so it's more about people using it weekly than over an entire year. I can believe there are 3% of people who go a week without using BBC.

Overall I think the BBC is worth the license fee however if it was shut down there are alternative services available now, 20 years ago it would have been a bigger deal.
 
Last edited:
lovelyhead said:
Most of these arguments for the BBC are weak sauce. The BBC's role has been replaced by the internet. End of.
Click to expand...

Now it hasn't...online narrowcasting is becoming more popular but the vast majority still watch TV and listen to the radio.

My mum and dad are tech savvy...but they never watch iplayer...they watch TV. And my dad hammers radio four in the car.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
It's this blinkered vision you have...some of my students don't have the Internet at home let alone a PC...

Your making a massive generalisation based on the majority of home users that have Internet access

Well let me tell you that's BS yet again.

Some parts of society ..the poor...the elderly...the remote places don't have computers or Internet...

Fact.

I have to make sure my learning resources are accessible offline to follow equality and diversity remits.
Click to expand...

Have you considered carrier pigeons? Might be more effective.
 
mattyfez said:
Have you considered carrier pigeons? Might be more effective.
Click to expand...

I'm cutting edge...probably more tech savvy than you...but some either don't have the inclination or the correct circumstances...and it's usually not their fault..

EDIT: I am more tech savvy than you.


NEXT...
 
easyrider said:
I'm cutting edge...probably more tech savvy than you...but some either don't have the inclination or the correct circumstances...and it's usually not their fault..

EDIT: I am more tech savvy than you.


NEXT...
Click to expand...

So people don't have a PC to look up news, but they have a TV? If so, they spent their money on what they want, why should they be rewarded with a service others forcefully pay for just because they bought a TV not a PC? I never use any BBC services, I do not want to pay for the BBC, its as simple as that (it is actually possible to function without it contrary to what some people in this thread like to imply). I will happily pay for things I do, or may well use, like the NHS, and council tax (2 incredibly poor examples people made in this thread) but not the BBC.

Also, if people are so poor they don't have any form of device that can inform them of news, or give them any entertainment that ISN'T through the BBC. I think they have more important things on their mind than watching TV or listening to the radio. Namely, trying to not starve. As the other guy said, you can't use the working class argument. Because its nothing to do with working class, it has more to do with the fact that some people have incredibly little money, working class people can actually eat, own a car, watch TV, own a computer etc. There are very poor families yes, but it is nowhere near a representation of working class families.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
Your discussion or point has been destroyed by me...you talking nonsense sorry...

A discussion does not need flippant remarks that carry nothing but air to back up your non argument.
Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring my view and rather than counter it with thought out reason, essentially say that you are better than me so my opinion counts for nothing, there's only one person being flippant here, you.
 
Meladath said:
Also, if people are so poor they don't have any form of device that can inform them of news, or give them any entertainment that ISN'T through the BBC. I think they have more important things on their mind than watching TV or listening to the radio. Namely, trying to not starve.
Click to expand...

This is incredibly naive...you do know the reason many people watch countless hours of TV?

You do don't you ?
 
mattyfez said:
You seem to be ignoring my view and rather than counter it with thought out reason, essentially say that you are better than me so my opinion counts for nothing, there's only one person being flippant here, you.
Click to expand...

You view is ridiculous...it's flawed and not worthy of a response...I'm not saying my opinion is better...I'm saying my opinion is based around actual facts...not some bedroom naive conjecture.
 
Meladath said:
So people don't have a PC to look up news, but they have a TV?
Click to expand...


It's far cheaper and easier to install and use a TV than the internet long term.
It's also far easier and cheaper to have multiple TV's with access to broadcasts than PC's.

For example I'm in a fairly large town, but just a couple of hundred yards from the end of one of edge of the "town proper" on one of the main roads into the town there are several houses that get barely 1mb/s via adsl (or did last time I fixed a computer at one), the lines to them were ancient and BT had no plans to replace them.

And those are houses about 200 yards from a large town, on the main road, not some little village or hamlet in the depths of Wales or Scotland.

Which do you think is easier to watch programmes on and get news through?
The TV/Radio
The internet connection that can barely be classed as broadband by the standards of the year 2000?
 
Werewolf said:
It's far cheaper and easier to install and use a TV than the internet long term.
It's also far easier and cheaper to have multiple TV's with access to broadcasts than PC's.

For example I'm in a fairly large town, but just a couple of hundred yards from the end of one of edge of the "town proper" on one of the main roads into the town there are several houses that get barely 1mb/s via adsl (or did last time I fixed a computer at one), the lines to them were ancient and BT had no plans to replace them.

And those are houses about 200 yards from a large town, on the main road, not some little village or hamlet in the depths of Wales or Scotland.

Which do you think is easier to watch programmes on and get news through?
The TV/Radio
The internet connection that can barely be classed as broadband by the standards of the year 2000?
Click to expand...

You also don't need any skills to turn on a cheap TV and rot your brain for hours on end either !
 
Back in the day everyone was scared of TVL and everyone paid their licence because they thought they would get caught by the detector vans and thrown into jail.

Nowadays everyone knows the detectors vans were BS and it is for TVL to prove you are not watching broadcast TV by means of a signed confession. Also all the fully legal people who don't watch broadcast TV at all and only watch DVDs, Netflix, catch up, etc, all know they don't need to pay TVL for the privilege.

So now the BBC are all running scared and trying to find way to continue their huge revenue stream by way of a forced tax which no one can get away from just like council tax and income tax.
 
spoffle said:
I don't watch any live TV at all, I don't consume any BBC content, why should I pay anything towards it if I'm not interested in anything it has to offer?
Click to expand...

You don't have to, presumably you don't have a TV license?

But we all pay for things we don't use, have no interest in or don't want - it's part of having a decent society with a wide range of services and facilities. I don't have any kids, but as with everyone else I technically pay towards schools, for example.
 
BBC basically forcing people to pay money because their programming isn't worth people voluntarily paying for it.

Great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom