TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
How would you make their radio service a subscription model (there's enough adverts on other platforms, i pay to not have them) given subscription based radio doesn't exist over here (ie - Sat radio etc) and streaming isn't a direct comparable solution?
Likewise, what about their educational services; would you make that a subscription model?
R&D (for example the BBC was one of the first to trial HD, Sky was a few days later in 2006, and push broadcast digital standards in the UK)?
World Services, how do you propose that to work exactly?

Unfortunately, most in here think TV and only TV when in reality the BBC offers a lot more.

The vast vast majority of the licence fee goes to BBC content.
Infrastructure is quite small and I wouldn't be opposed to that going into tax. Just not trashy content.
 
Agree with above.

Infrastructure in general taxation, but NOT A PENNY into BBC. It has to change the model, it has to be opt-in sub based and stand on it's own within the market and allow people to pay for what they want - I'd pay the BBC for their news content, but not for their other content - it's better elsewhere and has been for a long, long time.
 
That’s an old article

Has it been reversed?

This government needs to make its mind up about the BBC, nothing worse than changing your mind every 5 minutes....

How would you make their radio service a subscription model (there's enough adverts on other platforms, i pay to not have them) given subscription based radio doesn't exist over here (ie - Sat radio etc) and streaming isn't a direct comparable solution?
Likewise, what about their educational services; would you make that a subscription model?
R&D (BBC was one of the first to trial HD, Sky was a few days later in 2006, and push broadcast digital standards in the UK)?
World Services, how do you propose that to work exactly?

Unfortunately, most in here think TV and only TV when in reality the BBC offers a lot more.

Frankly... i just don't care about any of that, the BBC has spent the last couple of decades sticking its fingers in everything to make its self difficult to untangle, while at the same time sticking its hand out for more money to pay for it all.

If it cannot survive outside of the taxation model then it has not right to exist.
 
I posted this before but it's come up again

OPtKZRh.jpg
 
Last edited:
The vast vast majority of the licence fee goes to BBC content.
Infrastructure is quite small and I wouldn't be opposed to that going into tax. Just not trashy content.
So what's the proposal? Make the (UK) TV side a subscription model and roll everything else into a national tax (which could potentially end up costing everyone more)?

Frankly... i just don't care about any of that...
I wish i could have that attitude towards taxes and the services i have to pay for but don't use...
 
Last edited:
Make the BBC fight for your money, competitively.

In my view it has no right to our money just because it exists.
How exactly? What's the solution?
I've asked you and you keep dodging it other than giving generic "I'm alright jack" replies.

If people want its services they will chose to pay for it without any pressures to do so.
If we're just going for the 'looking out for myself' type mentality, how do i claim back taxes on services i don't use?

I posted this before but it's come up again
OPtKZRh.jpg

Their own website (https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13) seems to suggest those figures are a little out.
 
I wish i could have that attitude towards taxes and the services i have to pay for but don't use...

Again this is the idea that the BBC is entitled to your money just because it exists. it not existing makes no difference to anyone other than it being one less source of entertainment.

That's my response to this and the post above.
 
Last edited:
Again this is the idea that the BBC is entitled to your money just because it exists. it not existing makes no difference to anyone other than it being one less source of entertainment.

That's my response to this and the post above.
But it isn't just one source of entertainment. It's several categories of entertainment plus news, possibly the world's leading TV R&D department, training, professional services, etc etc

And this is intrinsically linked. The BBC can lead on technology because they have a broad enough operational base they can experiment in their own departments as part of research. It's just not nearly as black and white as you'd like.
 
Last edited:
So what's the proposal? Make the (UK) TV side a subscription model and roll everything else into a national tax (which could potentially end up costing everyone more)?


I wish i could have that attitude towards taxes and the services i have to pay for but don't use...

Roll the infrastructure spending into broadband/CT/another tax and let the BBC go against other entertainment and news sources.

No longer can it produce poor content and pay celebs and managers etc inflated salaries. It would actually be accountable.

I'm also happy for it to carry on as is. Gradually losing audience over time.
 
So what's the proposal? Make the (UK) TV side a subscription model and roll everything else into a national tax (which could potentially end up costing everyone more)?

You are acting as though broadcast TV will even still be a thing in the future (Pro tip: it won't).

Everything will be streamed on demand over the internet. The only thing still "broadcast" will be live sport or news but even that will be delivered over the internet.

The band aid will have to be pulled at some point.
 
Last edited:
Again this is the idea that the BBC is entitled to your money just because it exists. it not existing makes no difference to anyone other that it being one less source of entertainment.

That's my response to this and the post above.
You're focusing on a very narrow field of view of the services BBC offers.
And "...it not existing makes no difference to anyone other that it being one less source of entertainment." is clearly incorrect given their news, education and world services - even i remember using their 'Bitsize' school resources, which really helped me with certain subjects, and that was a long, long time ago.

Still waiting on your proposal for a workable solution to the funding of the BBC though...
 
I don't use any of it ^^^^


But it isn't just one source of entertainment. It's several categories of entertainment plus news, possibly the world's leading TV R&D department, training, professional services, etc etc

And this is intrinsically linked. The BBC can lead on technology because they have a broad enough operational base they can experiment in their own departments as part of research. It's just not nearly as black and white as you'd like.

The BBC is stuck in 1923, how we consume media has moved way beyond what the BBC says is part of its financing requirements.

Its just "I am, therefore entitled to money" no. Earn it, make me want to consume your services and pay for them, like everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Still waiting on your proposal for a workable solution to the funding of the BBC though...

Um, they make content that people like and will pay for like everyone else?

If they cannot do that, then they fail. Tough.

They are paying their executives hundreds of thousands of pounds a year so presumably they are all fantastic business men who can make lots of money. If the BBC fails, then they obviously are not and should never have been paid such large salaries in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Um, they make content that people like and will pay for like everyone else?

Exactly, if people want their services they will chose to pay for them.

Whats the problem? The problem is they cannot or are unwilling to compete, instead what they want is to take your money though taxation for simply existing.

Of course they do.... so do i, what a win!
 
Last edited:
it amounts to the same thing, failing to give them your time when they target you lands you at the magistrates courts
No it doesn't. Watching live TV without a licence could land you in front of the magistrate. But if they rock up at your door without evidence because you don't watch live TV then you can quite happily close the door with a polite "no thank you". The burden of proof is on them.
 
I would happily give up paying for the TV license these days. My watching habbits have slowly migrated to streaming services.
It's only Strictly and Gardeners World that the missus watches that prevents me cancelling. Pretty much everything else is dross, or getting very stale.
 
Back
Top Bottom