TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
yes - crikey, the bbc costs must have gone down, to boot; rehashing old content talking heads, Eastenders absent,
broadcasted on main channels, diversity programme that would have gone online to bbc3 "I may destroy you".

The educational content could be a redeeming factor ?
 
Get rid of all presenters good or bad and rehire at a flat wage that’s suitable, plenty of up and comers would be glad of the work
 
Are they going to take over 75's to court for non payment. Would be nice to see if there is a first case! All three million households should just not pay it they can't take them all to court lol

ah, just noticed this bit....

Only households where someone receives the Pension Credit benefit will still be eligible for a free licence.
Click to expand...
 
One of the things is that when you buy a TV they kind of force you to receive those channels. There should be an opt-in to receive those channels that the BBC broadcast. At the moment they forcing all households to receive that signal.

There is no opt out.
 
mrbell1984 said:
That's the problem they don't give people a choice it's forced upon someone to receive those stations. Doesn't say you have to watch it but it gives them backup saying "oh you receive it so you must watch it".
Click to expand...

I'd sooner they scrapped all the different platforms and just offered a single TV platform (even if distributed in different ways e.g. via Aerial/Satellite/Internet) that hosted all possible channels - just subscribe to individual channels or broadcasters. E.g. Want BBC content - pay £5/month for it, want Sky Movies - no problem that will be £10/month.

Would stop the platform exclusivity e.g. Sky/BT Channels, as well as commercial rights disagreements (e.g. 4HD and catchup missing on Freesat)
 
Armageus said:
I'd sooner they scrapped all the different platforms and just offered a single TV platform (even if distributed in different ways e.g. via Aerial/Satellite/Internet) that hosted all possible channels - just subscribe to individual channels or broadcasters. E.g. Want BBC content - pay £5/month for it, want Sky Movies - no problem that will be £10/month.

Would stop the platform exclusivity e.g. Sky/BT Channels, as well as commercial rights disagreements (e.g. 4HD and catchup missing on Freesat)
Click to expand...

I agree. Content paid platforms and no licence fee would be much better. Problem is I bet BBC are raking it in. The more they get the more they will waste like they have done all these years.
 
Damn right the over 75s should pay the licence fee if they use the services that require it!

I've no problem with the licence fee, but do not pay it as I do not use any of the services that require it.
 
Armageus said:
I'd sooner they scrapped all the different platforms and just offered a single TV platform (even if distributed in different ways e.g. via Aerial/Satellite/Internet) that hosted all possible channels - just subscribe to individual channels or broadcasters. E.g. Want BBC content - pay £5/month for it, want Sky Movies - no problem that will be £10/month.

Would stop the platform exclusivity e.g. Sky/BT Channels, as well as commercial rights disagreements (e.g. 4HD and catchup missing on Freesat)
Click to expand...
You'd also want multiple providers, though to ensure there's competition.
 
roadie said:
Damn right the over 75s should pay the licence fee if they use the services that require it!

I've no problem with the licence fee, but do not pay it as I do not use any of the services that require it.
Click to expand...

Can't particularly argue with this point.

It's all circumstantial, isn't it? Most people in my family/friend zone that are elderly are in a much better financial situation than I am in my thirties.

But the idea of those without much pension and just about getting by makes me feel sick, especially if they don't have much family and the TV is their escapism.
 
wingman said:
Can't particularly argue with this point.

It's all circumstantial, isn't it? Most people in my family/friend zone that are elderly are in a much better financial situation than I am in my thirties.

But the idea of those without much pension and just about getting by makes me feel sick, especially if they don't have much family and the TV is their escapism.
Click to expand...

A TV is the only thing the majority of over 75s have. It can be very lonely for them so why not let them have something?
 
mrbell1984 said:
A TV is the only thing the majority of over 75s have. It can be very lonely for them so why not let them have something?
Click to expand...

For reasons I've literally just mentioned.

Why don't we let the families who are just making ends meet have a free TV license? But the old 75 year old couple down the road with three properties and four pensions get it for free?

As I said, it's circumstantial. I don't have the right answer, there probably isn't one.
 
Basher said:
You'd also want multiple providers, though to ensure there's competition.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but that could be accomplished by an "open-platform" the same as say freeview, with multiple different manufacturers able to produce equipment to a given specification.
 
More than happy for 75+ who can afford to pay the TV licence to do so, in relative terms they are not going to have to deal with the long term consequences of Brexit (which a majority voted for IIRC, thanks for that... Not) and the magic COVID money tree, while some are on far better private pensions than many of us current workers can hope to get.
 
i can see a lot of pensioners refusing to pay this, especially ones on the bread line
what have they got to lose, are they going to start throwing lots of over 75s in prison?
i think it should still be free to over 75s but if they really have to start charging again it could at least be half price or something?
it's another nail in the coffin for the BBC hopefully anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom