TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
It is only a few channels.

The infrastructure and even the radio could be put under general tax.

The majority is a bit of tv content. Everyone has differing opinions. But if people valued it, and it was that good, it could survive on a subscription base.

I'm sure the only reason people are worried is because they know it can't. It's bloated, and overloaded with overpaid tv faces.



I'd also say it produces very little niche content. Again this is personal. But the reason I've not had a licence is because it produces almost nothing I want to watch. What would I pay for the BBC? A few pounds a year. Because there's so little value to me.
 
It is only a few channels.
Si9e5.gif


:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
And that's only their TV and Radio. World services, education, childrens programming, news, R&D (helped massively to develop DAB and HD within the UK) are a few more.


Can you point to another UK broadcaster that offers more TV/Radio channels please?

No. But no one else charges 160 a year either.
That's what most are arguing. Let the free market decide if it's worth it.

There's no need for the BBC to fund this stuff anymore. Everything will come down the Internet in time.
All the research and development of the past is paid for by the public.

I wouldn't even be opposed to a basic radio + infrastructure tax. Even though I don't use it.

But not the bloated tv side. It's not needed. Freeview, streamers and other paid for services can plug the hole.


And remember. I'm not saying ban it. If. It's great it will flourish. If it's the best thing since sliced bread they can charge 19.99 ppm and people will pay. And they could pay world wide.

Only if you think it isn't good enough but still want it would you support it going into general tax.
 
Imagine believing that excuse.

I hate how people like her insult everyone's intelligence with complete excrement like that.

These people actually think their audience are that stupid, because they all went to expensive schools they think they are cleverer than the unwashed masses, the reality is they are all dumb as _____ none of them have an QI greater than 100, i do and _____ those idiots, some of the most intelligent people i know went to state schools and work menial jobs.
 
Last edited:
It is only a few channels.

The infrastructure and even the radio could be put under general tax.

The majority is a bit of tv content. Everyone has differing opinions. But if people valued it, and it was that good, it could survive on a subscription base.

I'm sure the only reason people are worried is because they know it can't. It's bloated, and overloaded with overpaid tv faces.



I'd also say it produces very little niche content. Again this is personal. But the reason I've not had a licence is because it produces almost nothing I want to watch. What would I pay for the BBC? A few pounds a year. Because there's so little value to me.

I don't think there is anything niche on the BBC. It's all made for mass market and simplified.

There used to be some weird stuff on late at night, but even that died.
 
Last edited:
The USA alternative is a system where media (most significantly news media) is owned executively by a small number of very wealthy individual (and increasingly foreign states) for the primary purpose of corrupting the domestic democratic process for their own gain.

The BBC acts to keep the rest of the industry reasonably decent.

So it would make a very significant difference to all of us.

Not sure that converts the UK to a USA styled system though... Excluding the fact that most of younger generations don't consume traditional TV, you'd essentially just have a channel 4, itv and channel 5 as mainstream, with whatever existing offerings were typically available via digital.

Also because of the way the BBC is funded it can cater to smaller niche interests rather than having to pander to advertising income and making a profit as a commercial entity.

This is about the only viable argument I can see, although I still disagree with the fact that the majority shouldn't have to be funding a service for niche interests.
 
This whole thread can be shorterned to this back in 2015 btw :)

I told them I don't need one as I realised I never watch live TV, don't really watch much iplayer stuff. Stuff can be acquired elsewhere.. like my sister! she has a license so we watch Bake Off there. oh wait, not live, not bbc, maybe she can cancel too! but they won't as family etc.

I've canceled mine about 2 years ago, not had a peep from them since. If I really wanted to I would buy a license for the year, maybe if I wanted to watch Planet Earth III etc but I'm not in a rush.

I did this and filled out the form online when I moved into my new place over a year ago, but they still send me letters. I've read they'll still send you the letters because they either expect you to buckle to their pathetic letters, or they eventually want to come in a check themselves if you have a TV, in which case you potentially might watch live TV and therefore need a license. They can absolutely go screw themselves.
 
I did this and filled out the form online when I moved into my new place over a year ago, but they still send me letters. I've read they'll still send you the letters because they either expect you to buckle to their pathetic letters, or they eventually want to come in a check themselves if you have a TV, in which case you potentially might watch live TV and therefore need a license. They can absolutely go screw themselves.
Its never been the case with me, I think i first cancelled about 7 years ago, they just send a letter every couple of years to make sure that its "correct" that you still do not need a tv licence. Just login and use the code provided and they then email you with confirmation and thats it for a couple of years.
 
Back
Top Bottom