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

 
lovelyhead said:
I never made any claims on how much it would cost.

The technology already exists. All it would take would be digital boxes similar to a Sky box that could take a card that would decrypt the signal. For iPlayer usage you would be required to enter a code to access it. All of which could be paid for via direct debit / at the post office etc.

As for radio that could carry on the way it is and be funded via the payments for TV. Encryption for radio wouldn't be required.

Administration would be less than is at present as there would be no need for TV licence inspectors. It would also have the advantage of freeing up court time as no one would ever be prosecuted for failure to pay for a licence.

What is wrong with this plan?
Click to expand...

You're going to give households at least £50 of hardware per TV, a smart card per TV, ensure there is a system in place to prevent people just handing the cards to another household, keep the encryption systems up to date to ensure there is a purpose to having them, and run a call centre to field technical support questions from people who are having issues and you expect it to cost less than what we have now?
 
Caged said:
You're going to give households at least £50 of hardware per TV, a smart card per TV, ensure there is a system in place to prevent people just handing the cards to another household, keep the encryption systems up to date to ensure there is a purpose to having them, and run a call centre to field technical support questions from people who are having issues and you expect it to cost less than what we have now?
Click to expand...

1. Who said anything about free boxes? You had to buy your own digital box when analogue was turned off.

2. A smart card costs pennies.

3. Use a similar system to Sky to stop sharing of cards. Anyway who shares their sky card? No one.

4. Sky have no trouble keeping their encryption system up to date.

5. The TV licence people already have a call center.

6. Yes it would cost less.
 
Cool you're right it would work perfectly.

If you can't see how "Sky manage it" is not an answer that addresses the cost requirements of any proposed solution then this discussion really isn't going to go any further. You think that running a database of people who have paid and people who haven't costs more than running that database and also managing an encryption service.

You seem to be transfixed on the current TV license being wasted on admin somehow, yet you want to propose a solution which would see a cost increase to the end user entirely to cover administration of a service. You want more of the thing you see as being a problem.
 
Last edited:
lovelyhead said:
That person would be selfish. It is easy to make a case for the NHS being funded through taxes. You may not need it's services today or tomorrow, but someday you might need it to save you or a family members life.

You simply cannot compare the BBC to healthcare.

When I said the BBC was actively working against my interests I was referring to the way the conducted themselves during the Scottish referendum. For a corporation that has a mandate to be impartial it failed miserably last year.

The BBC is damaged goods in Scotland.
Click to expand...

Yes the same way you are selfish.
 
Caged said:
Cool you're right it would work perfectly.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Caged said:
You seem to be transfixed on the current TV license being wasted on admin somehow
Click to expand...

I have said no such thing.

Caged said:
yet you want to propose a solution which would see a cost increase to the end user entirely to cover administration of a service. You want more of the thing you see as being a problem.
Click to expand...

Again see above.

My whole argument is that the BBC should be funded via some sort of pay per view model so that people who have no interest in it don't have to pay. The costs of admin is something only you have brought up.
 
lovelyhead said:
Thanks.



I have said no such thing.



Again see above.

My whole argument is that the BBC should be funded via some sort of pay per view model so that people who have no interest in it don't have to pay. The costs of admin is something only you have brought up.
Click to expand...

You've continually stated that encrypting the signal would result in lower costs than the current system.

lovelyhead said:
Administration would be less than is at present as there would be no need for TV licence inspectors. It would also have the advantage of freeing up court time as no one would ever be prosecuted for failure to pay for a licence.
Click to expand...

lovelyhead said:
6. Yes it would cost less.
Click to expand...

If you just want it encrypted and therefore to cost more for the people who do want the BBC, purely so that you can watch Sky without needing to pay for a TV license then that fits my definition of selfish. You're happy for the people who use it to pay more as long as you can pay nothing.
 
Last edited:
lovelyhead said:
Please explain in what way am I being selfish.
Click to expand...

Why do you want to stop paying for a service that is crucial to any sovereign, and is also enjoyed by others at times of peace?

The same way you enjoy a service that is crucial to people's health, even though some people might not utilize it; they still pay national insurance.
 
Caged said:
You've continually stated that encrypting the signal would result in lower costs than the current system.





If you just want it encrypted and therefore to cost more for the people who do want the BBC, purely so that you can watch Sky without needing to pay for a TV license then that fits my definition of selfish. You're happy for the people who use it to pay more as long as you can pay nothing.
Click to expand...

I don't watch any live TV. Please read the title of this thread to see where I am coming from.

Costs is something you brought up. It is not the basis of my argument. I don't care if a pay per view system costs less or more.

The way the current system works is unsustainable and needs to be replaced with a pay per view system as it is the only fair way of funding the BBC. BBC diehards aren't having any of it though as they know that the BBC would not have as many of the paying "customers" it has now. Again, I don't care about whether the BBC would be poorer or not because of a pay per view system.

Forcing people to pay for something they don't and will never use is the sort of thing the mafia would do.
 
Nobody forces anyone to pay a TV license if they don't use live TV services. If that were to change it's not because the BBC changed the law.
 
M1k3H said:
Why do you want to stop paying for a service that is crucial to any sovereign, and is also enjoyed by others at times of peace?

The same way you enjoy a service that is crucial to people's health, even though some people might not utilize it; they still pay national insurance.
Click to expand...

Please stop trying to compare the BBC to the NHS. It has been explained numerous times now why it is daft to even try.

As per the title of this thread, I don't watch Live TV and never will but there is talk of forcing everyone to pay regardless. Pay per view is the solution not mafia tactics.
 
But it's been explained how subscription (not pay per view since that's an entirely different model) isn't the answer yet due to there being no way to implement it cost effectively. This hasn't stopped you proclaiming that you've solved the issue though. When challenged on costs your answer is "don't care I won't pay it anyway".
 
Caged said:
Nobody forces anyone to pay a TV license if they don't use live TV services. If that were to change it's not because the BBC changed the law.
Click to expand...

The current way the BBC is funded is not fair. Forcing everyone to pay for the BBC whether you watch live TV or not is down right wrong. Pay per view / subscription (however you want to word it) is the only fair solution. I don't care about whether the BBC will receive less revenue as a result of adopting this means of funding (pay per view / subscription). They will just have to make programming within their means and cut back on all the fluff they currently put out.

There you go. That is my argument in a nutshell. As simple as it can get for you. Stop going off on wild tangents. Do you agree with my argument or not?
 
Last edited:
lovelyhead said:
Please stop trying to compare the BBC to the NHS. It has been explained numerous times now why it is daft to even try.

As per the title of this thread, I don't watch Live TV and never will but there is talk of forcing everyone to pay regardless. Pay per view is the solution not mafia tactics.
Click to expand...

Why? It could be that my and other people's priorities are the TV and radio instead of NHS, we live in a democracy don't we?

Plus, let me tell you what happened to another organization like the BBC. (other country)

People complained about "tv tax".

Government made organization semi-governmental by issuing shares and being the only holder with intention to sell.

Tv tax abolished.

Organization forced to start advertisements to fund itself, with plan to sell of shares in immediate future and privatize.

Nobody buys shares as ratings are low due to content being more cultural than mainstream.

Organization starts producing mainstream content.

Government forced to fund via general taxation as it is the only shareholder.

Government also funds the private company that took over the infrastructure maintenance and administration.

Nobody buys shares due to limitations of offloading by government.

People still funding two organizations via general taxation + adverts on **** content.
 
I pay my licence happily because i use the service though i would prefer they spent the money making original tv programmes instead of buying them and stop bidding for sports tv rights plenty of other channels that can carry that and fund it with adverts
 
lovelyhead said:
The current way the BBC is funded is not fair. Forcing everyone to pay for the BBC whether you watch live TV or not is down right wrong. Pay per view / subscription (however you want to word it) is the only fair solution. I don't care about whether the BBC will receive less revenue as a result of adopting this means of funding (pay per view / subscription). They will just have to make programming within their means and cut back on all the fluff they currently put out.

There you go. That is my argument in a nutshell. As simple as it can get for you. Stop going off on wild tangents. Do you agree with my argument or not?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your definition of fairness so no, I don't agree with your argument. The BBC is a public service broadcaster and has certain obligations to fulfil under that remit. If you want no public money to go to the BBC then you would have to let them compete under the same terms as other commercial broadcasters.
 
M1k3H said:
Why do you want to stop paying for a service that is crucial to any sovereign, and is also enjoyed by others at times of peace?

The same way you enjoy a service that is crucial to people's health, even though some people might not utilize it; they still pay national insurance.
Click to expand...

Still banging the pro BBC drum I see.

Comparing the BBC to the NHS is a pathetic argument. The NHS is there for us 27/7 when we hurt ourselves, the BBC is just one big gravy train with no actual real value to anyone.
 
Caged said:
I don't agree with your definition of fairness so no, I don't agree with your argument. The BBC is a public service broadcaster and has certain obligations to fulfil under that remit. If you want no public money to go to the BBC then you would have to let them compete under the same terms as other commercial broadcasters.
Click to expand...

You must have a strange definition of what fairness is if you think the current licence fee or the proposed forced taxation are fair for people who never consume BBC services.

I would love no public money to go to BBC. Quite frankly I would love to see the BBC shut down completely.
 
lovelyhead said:
You must have a strange definition of what fairness is if you think the current licence fee or the proposed forced taxation are fair for people who never consume BBC services.
Click to expand...

How many people watch live TV but never consume ANY BBC services?

I don't mean how people pretend on the internet that they watch live TV but never consume BBC services as part of an 'anti everything they don't personally adore' agenda, I mean how many, as a proportion of license payers, actually do?

I'd imagine the percentage is so low it's almost a non-issue.

Currently if you are not interested in television you can not watch it, not pay any money for a license and still benefit from all the free to view BBC content on the internet and via radio.

Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

There is much about BBC content that isn't perfect but if you think say ITV is generally of higher quality I have to wonder what it is you watch. As a classic example I tuned into what looked like an interesting documentary on Virgin Atlantic the other day on ITV. I had to turn it off after 15 minutes because the childish narrating style and trivial banal questions they were asking made what could have been a fascinating documentary irritating to watch, presumably in the name of the 'mainstream appeal'. Yet watch a documentary on the BBC and you generally don't get that. With the possible exception of Channel 4, nobody seems to do decent documentaries quite as well as the BBC does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom