But it also means the BBC can keep hiking the price with no option to cancel it.
It needs to be left to either fail or the BBC come up with a plan to compete commercially
Last edited:
TV Licence Super Thread
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
But it also means the BBC can keep hiking the price with no option to cancel it.
It needs to be left to either fail or the BBC come up with a plan to compete commercially
Its either that or fail. Because it will naturally fail.
Soldato
They can FO with that. I don't pay for it currently nor watch live TV. Forcing people to pay for it through a non-opt in tax is wrong.
Using CT bandings as the means to quantify the amount paid is even worse. Either everyone pays the same or no one is forced to pay for it.
Do you think they will let it fail?
I just don't think we are there yet.
It would be an annoying chunk. Of cash (let's say 150 a year) extra for those of us who Don't pay. But the alternative is it failing.
Its a huge corporation. And UK population still like it too much for that to happen imo.
Soldato
No they won't hence my second statement.... Everyone pays the same and not based on CT banding given that CT is an archaic system needing binned and replaced.
CT banding of house does not equal how wealthy someone is nor their ability to pay taxes.
CT banding of house does not equal how wealthy someone is nor their ability to pay taxes.
CT banding does kind of (well it's supposed to) roughly go along with wealth.
And most of the time that's true. Especially anecdotally.
It may well end up being a flat fee. But it's either going to be added to CT or the BBC will eventually fail.
Soldato
When will this happen? I'm in the middle of a city and I still can't get any flavour of fibre, I'm stuck on 10Mb ADSL2+ over copper.
Last edited:
Get 4g/5g.
Soldato
Last edited:
I would still try it mobile internet routers can get decent speeds with carrier aggregation.
Last edited:
Soldato
Pretty sure the UK has backed away from the idea of getting high speed reliable broadband to every home. There's just a few % that aren't viable using national infrastructure. But I mean like 5-10% not 1.5%
Starlink is being rolled out. Starting with rural areas first?
Where are you based?
Soldato
Or just add adverts
A potential solution. Probably an easier sell to the public. BBC is probably too expensive to be funded by adverts. But it would probably be best solution.
They'd have to cut back on so much though.
Soldato
Middle of Stoke-on-Trent, not rural in the slightest.
For some reason Openreach didn't activate our cabinet when they did the surrounding area. The surrounding streets can all have FTTC. I've been on at them for years now, they won't activate it as it would mean admitting they made a balls up. Even been to see my MP about the situation. Chocolate fireguard comes to mind.
Last edited:
like netflix - how the mighty are fallen - it's the future, you make the product so expensive, so only the rich can avoid them (who might be who you want to attract most -or, AI product placement the next thing)
Multi-tasking ? listen to the radio whilst in the car, cooking .... on the move, or whilst on laptop, doing less taxing work - the bandwidth of getting information versus reading some junk on twitter is n-fold.
Musk trying to add voice/video notes on twitter seems to acknowledge that too.
Working for the BBC needs to be thought of as a privilege where the talent expect to have salaries similar to the judicial system.
They should sell it as voluntary British Broadcasting Corporation subscription and have the government come up with a modest shortfall.
I only read the BBC website. I banned myself from having a reason to need a TV licence as a matter of principle against the way it's enforced.
Recently I've come to realise the world needs the BBC and that is enough reason to pay for it.
They should sell it as voluntary British Broadcasting Corporation subscription and have the government come up with a modest shortfall.
I only read the BBC website. I banned myself from having a reason to need a TV licence as a matter of principle against the way it's enforced.
Recently I've come to realise the world needs the BBC and that is enough reason to pay for it.
Soldato
Very high salaries? Would it not make sense to lower operating costs?
The idea is to get people in, who can do the same job, probably not as famously, but for less money.
For example the Lord Chief Justice gets the highest salary at £275,534 and yet Gary Lineker gets £2M.
I expect Gary might consider giving up his salary to continue to have fun with his mates while presenting on the BBC, or alternatively, he could retire and someone with a much more modest salary takes over.
The essence is that working for the BBC needs to become something people prefer to do rather than something people want competitive salaries to do.
