TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
BowdonUK said:
So far I've not seen any Labour MP agree with the scrapping of the license fee, which hits the poorer people in the community hardest.

It's amazing that we have Labour promoting a tax and the Tories talking of suspending/removing it.
Click to expand...

Because spending big is absolutely their thing as they think it generates a bigger economy. They're a high tax, high spend party because they have to be to implement all their vanity projects.
 
Only Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing and Would I Lie To You are any good and that list isn't worth close to £196 million.

thenewoc said:
Because spending big is absolutely their thing as they think it generates a bigger economy. They're a high tax, high spend party because they have to be to implement all their vanity projects.
Click to expand...

Corbyn wanted to slap the tax on tech firms to fund the BBC :/

Basically punish their competition and supress progress away from the BBC's outdated model.
 
Nasher said:
What comedy does the BBC make now?
Click to expand...

BBC produces a lot of comedy content, BBC website and programming output shows that.

Nasher said:
Only Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing and Would I Lie To You are any good and that list isn't worth close to £196 million.
Click to expand...

If you don't like any of the other comedy programming produced by the BBC then that is perfectly fine but, stating opinions as facts makes you seem like you share a braincell with the family and it wasn't your turn.
 
I think they make some decent content, problem is they make TOO MUCH content and a lot of it seems to be fairly poor quality to me.

I don't want to pay for what I perceive as a poor quality provider, with a huge selection of poor quality shows. So bin the whole thing or split it and let me pay for what I do want e.g. radio stations (which in general are pretty good).
 
Comical responses to this thread over the past couple of pages.

Criticising the BBC for not producing the content people want and being forced to pay for it nicely topped off with posts about paying as little as possible or even nothing using underhanded methods for the content they do want on YouTube :D.

You couldn't make this **** up, just typical behaviour from the people of this **** hole nation.
 
Raumarik said:
So bin the whole thing or split it and let me pay for what I do want e.g. radio stations (which in general are pretty good).
Click to expand...

Think Radio would have to paid for by advertising which drives me nuts on commercial radio, the same sodding ads and music on a long drive is painful. Either that or make it accessible via BBC Sounds through subscription and get rid of the FM / DAB service.
 
Puzzled said:
Think Radio would have to paid for by advertising...
Click to expand...

It's the only suitable solution but stations would get thinned and chances are, it would end up like another Global station which, imo, are generally pants.

Moving them to "data" only would massively alienate current listeners and i doubt they could make it commercially viable.

Sat radio, a la Sirius XM, would be a possible alternative (as it's subscription based) and i've always wondered if there's an opening in the UK/EU for something like that although cost of infrastructure would be the biggest hurdle.
 
Werewolf said:
Possibly because in the scheme of things the cost of the BBC is very little.

Doris made a huge thing about scrapping the fee rise being done to help the poor, but it's only about £3 a year they're saving, vs the £20 a week UC uplift she voted to scrap, and the tax rises she voted for.
It was one of the most cynical bits of nonsense I've seen from this government, and from a person who is an utter joke and doesn't know the basics about what her job, then doubles down when people correct her.
Click to expand...

Whether its value for money depends on how much money you have at your disposal.

Why should people have to pay to watch live programmes on formats not controlled by the BBC? Like ITV, Channel 5, Sky and Virgin Media channels? The latter you're already paying an additional subscription fee.

Werewolf said:
Every other alternative in terms of actual news and local service that has been looked at to replace the BBC either costs more, doesn't provide access to the whole of the UK, or simply doesn't exist - Doris's comment when someone asked about how they'd do a subscription was telling "97% of the UK has access to SUPER FAST broadband that can carry 7 channels", ignoring that just getting access to that is going to cost more than the licence fee, before any hardware changes needed (I can't think of any halfway reliable ISP that costs just £14 a month).

The only reason the Tories are talking about removing it is because it appeases their nuttier back bench and pulls the news away from their illegal activities for a few days.
Not even the rest of the media market in the UK is in favour of having the BBC go to subscription or advertising, as they know that if that happens it'll kill off half the other broadcasters, and massively weaken most of the survivors as the ad budget won't go up and the BBC will hoover up much of it due to it's audience share.
At the same time it would do away with one of the few UK companies that actively seeks out and promotes new talent into the industry.
Click to expand...

Or they are doing it to appease the red wall seats they won at the last election?

Labour seem to be looking at this from the BBC point of view. It's not about the BBC. It's about the people having to pay money to watch it under threat of a fine and imprisonment.

What is wrong with running advertisements? It's a more successful system than the current tv license fee as the other commercial channels seem to have lots of money to throw around.

Labour should have scrapped the tv license years ago when they were in power.
 
As the older generation start to die off they have no chance anyway, something will have to give.

Younger generations consume media in a totally different way as we know and many could easily manage without a licence and not fall foul of the rules.
 
BowdonUK said:
Why should people have to pay to watch live programmes on formats not controlled by the BBC? Like ITV, Channel 5, Sky and Virgin Media channels? The latter you're already paying an additional subscription fee.
Click to expand...
cost effective means to encrypt just bbc for those with legacy equipment doesn't exist
 
To broadcast ITV does take some money but the company itself can pay for that service. The whole TV license should be scrapped as a valid means of funding, just like the radio license was before it. The BBC can be run the same way BBC america and Ch4 are funded which doesnt require the public or government especially.
The only subsidy I see as valid is radio news, the very long term informational type services are justified and really not anywhere close to as expensive or involved as full productions.

A blanket tax like the TV license is zero problem to the rich and a problem for the poorest. It always works out that way, it shouldnt exist. I always got the b/w license to use with an ancient set when I first moved out, no money and often out working 14hr days anyway and it was £30 but I bet they raised that too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom