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

I enjoy what the BBC offers and have no qualms paying the license fee.
I get my money's worth with TMS, 5 Live Xtra and BBC 6 on radio plus BBC1 and 4 plus news on TV then iPlayer etc.
There's probably enough people like me who are willing to pay for the good service they feel they get that they don't really care about those that are unwilling to pay for the service they say they don't want but use anyway in one form or another.
 
MrMoonX said:
Can't they just go advertising and subscription and be done with criminal license fee stuff
Click to expand...

No, because they were set up fir the good of the nation. Going advertising you would lose the for the nation bit. A lot of what they produce, the educational, small interest, news etc is massively loss leading and could not be done commercially.

The real debate is do you think the uk as a whole (not an individual) benefits from a national broadcaster who has a mandate to provide such material.
 
philip2009 said:
My post suggested the TV licence should be altered because it criminalised 150,000 people per year. You seem more concerned about the BBC's income and the iPlayer loophole - I am not.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I too am concerned about the amount of people who have a criminal record because of it and want it removed from a specific offence. I want to keep the BBC and have it free from adverts, I am willing to pay for it (if required) but my preference of how it is paid differs from what is proposed. My preference is paying through council tax (like you do for fire services etc).

The BBC and live TV is less essential in terms of keeping informed but in the age of mass advertising it is more essential it stays free from corporate interference and brainwashing.
 
Trifid said:
The BBC and live TV is less essential in terms of keeping informed but in the age of mass advertising it is more essential it stays free from corporate interference and brainwashing.
Click to expand...

The BBC really isn't essential at all.

There are hundreds of other ways to be informed not just 1 channel.
 
To be fair, some of these points do make me feel the way it is currently done has some merit to it. At least there is the ability to not pay should you not use it (whether through principle or lifestyle). There is obviously some merit in that.

Whereas a blanket levy, where you pay it regardless of use, is basically unfair. There are some who strongly feel a moral obligation (whether founded or not) to pay not one penny towards the BBC, and these people, in general, will refuse to use ANY BBC services, and would be horrified if they were forced to pay them.

I for one would quite happily not use any BBC TV services and re-instate my previous Sky subscription that allowed me to watch the few american TV shows I used to watch, and F1, if I didn't have the license fee to pay. Alas, the way the law is worded, it is irrelevant if I use the BBC services so long as I use ANY live TV. It's a little wrong, but certainly not as far as slapping it onto council tax.
 
You might be the exception to the rule but I find it very hard to believe that anyone who wants to watch american TV shows and F1 badly enough that they are going to take out a Sky subscription costing at least £486 each year is going to then decide that the cost of the TV License on top of that just makes it far too expensive. You're already spending nearly £500 on TV, which by the definition of this thread is a complete non-essential, so why not spend a bit more?
 
Because ? (i'd guess) half the people don't spend anywhere near that much £ and pirate TV shows for free. Very few actually subscribe to real digital streaming alternative services like netflix etc. Its just a smoke screen in reality. Don't feel compelled to defend yourself. Dont be offended.:p
 
Last edited:
xs2man said:
I for one would quite happily not use any BBC TV services and re-instate my previous Sky subscription that allowed me to watch the few american TV shows I used to watch, and F1, if I didn't have the license fee to pay. Alas, the way the law is worded, it is irrelevant if I use the BBC services so long as I use ANY live TV. It's a little wrong, but certainly not as far as slapping it onto council tax.
Click to expand...

So you're happy paying £50 a month for Sky, £600 a year to watch a smattering of shows and a tiny fraction of their output, but don't want to pay £12 a month to help fund the BBC?

Oh and all these people who say they don't use the BBC, I bet you've all shared BBC News items on your Facebook, I bet if you're out and about and want to keep up with sport you switch on 5live, I bet if something major has happened in your area you tune in to the Beeb's local news to follow the coverage. I think some people are equating the BBC entirely with whether they watch Eastenders and Strictly or not and don't realise (or want to admit to themselves) just how often they do consume BBC content directly or indirectly.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
So you're happy paying £50 a month for Sky, £600 a year to watch a smattering of shows and a tiny fraction of their output, but don't want to pay £12 a month to help fund the BBC?

Oh and all these people who say they don't use the BBC, I bet you've all shared BBC News items on your Facebook, I bet if you're out and about and want to keep up with sport you switch on 5live, I bet if something major has happened in your area you tune in to the Beeb's local news to follow the coverage. I think some people are equating the BBC entirely with whether they watch Eastenders and Strictly or not and don't realise (or want to admit to themselves) just how often they do consume BBC content directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...

That's missing the point. If there was no BBC they would be sharing links to some other news site. It's not like the BBC's got the market cornered. They're not even the best news source.
 
estebanrey said:
So you're happy paying £50 a month for Sky, £600 a year to watch a smattering of shows and a tiny fraction of their output, but don't want to pay £12 a month to help fund the BBC?

Oh and all these people who say they don't use the BBC, I bet you've all shared BBC News items on your Facebook, I bet if you're out and about and want to keep up with sport you switch on 5live, I bet if something major has happened in your area you tune in to the Beeb's local news to follow the coverage. I think some people are equating the BBC entirely with whether they watch Eastenders and Strictly or not and don't realise (or want to admit to themselves) just how often they do consume BBC content directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...
I'm wouldn't be willing to pay £120 a year for BBC news alone given the choice.

The only content worth watching I'm willing to pay for directly (TV shows, nature documentaries) from Amazon instant video or purchasing the physical media. Like it or not you are being forced to pay for Eastenders and Strictly, hardly causes worthy of taxation.
 
Last edited:
I am saving up my harassment letters then I am going to take bbc and capita to court and request £100kin compensation for harassment alarm and distress. I have literally cut the cord going to my sat dish outside and it is clearly visible from the street but I continue to be harassed by the tvl.

I don't think the bbc is essential service one single bit and think the UK would be far better without it. If it acted more like cspan then I an argument for it be essential might be possible. When most of its programming is pantomime and entertainment. There realy is no justification for it.

It also massively monopolises the industry because it is mandatory. How can a new online newspaper compete with website that receives £3 billion per year in mandatory income? It cant and as a result uk media industry is dead and what's left is struggling. All the newspapers are not making a lot of money but yet the bbc moves to new offices just updated their website and pushing in to the app worlds for dominance there.
 
anything I don't mind said:
I am saving up my harassment letters then I am going to take bbc and capita to court and request £100kin compensation for harassment alarm and distress. I have literally cut the cord going to my sat dish outside and it is clearly visible from the street but I continue to be harassed by the tvl.

I don't think the bbc is essential service one single bit and think the UK would be far better without it. If it acted more like cspan then I an argument for it be essential might be possible. When most of its programming is pantomime and entertainment. There realy is no justification for it.

It also massively monopolises the industry because it is mandatory. How can a new online newspaper compete with website that receives £3 billion per year in mandatory income? It cant and as a result uk media industry is dead and what's left is struggling. All the newspapers are not making a lot of money but yet the bbc moves to new offices just updated their website and pushing in to the app worlds for dominance there.
Click to expand...

You have to remember 1 small fact about the BBC.

It's run by the old boy network, El hand shakers and it makes them A LOT of money, they won't want that gone any time soon.

I totally agree with you that nearly all of the stuff on BBC is repeats which are all crap anyway and the new stuff is even worse, A bake off ? who the hell wants to watch a bake off ? I only know about this because I house sat and watched some TV at my brothers and holy hell the BBC is utter garbage.

The TVL will be around for quite some time, I got harassed by them and I even gave them a tour of my place showing the complete lack of TV and radio, Even showed them my internet history which is just game publication websites, Tech forums, Facebook and YouTube going back 2 years, Zero amounts of BBC.

They should bring out a little box the size of an Intel NUC that you plug your TV into to recieve the BBC that you pay for monthly, If you don't have it you simply don't have BBC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom