Other services do not supply education, news, children's programming, radio.
TV Licence Super Thread
- Thread starter Ken
- Start date
If they have adverts then they will be accountable to whoever pays. They are accountable as laid out in the charter and acts of parliament.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldcomuni/96/9606.htm
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2021
- Posts
- 4,108
- Location
- Oxon
What they say they will do:
What they actually do:
- reduce local radio
- remove the bbc news hd channel (arguably their main channel for many people)
- get people riled up and arguing in hys
- fill the news homepage with non-news social engineering content
- bbc bitesize is a shadow of its former self
- no entertainment content worth watching, compared to when I grew up when there was something good every day
- waste money on overseas stuff at the expense of uk stuff, while claiming it's a strength
- stifle emerging technologies via tvl ambiguity and scare tactics, and delay switching to digital as long as possible
Near as damnit the opposite of what they're supposed to be doing.
If someone is watching live sport on amazon prime, the BBC has contributed literally zero to that service end to end, between the players on the pitch through to the photons hitting their eyeballs, they've contributed zilch. How is that reasonable? It makes no sense at all so I wouldn't put it past them applying it to all internet streaming services.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Maybe you are confused with my post, if you watch US sports live, on the internet via your PC on amazon prime video you will have to pay for the TV license.
You dismissed it as ridiculous to even discuss, but currently they are already applying it to "live" content, so going from "live" to "on demand", is only 1 step here.
So now back to original question, where is the logic in how it is now?
I said before.
How can it not be above 200?
If it gets added to CT you can guarantee it'll be a sliding scale where band A pays less.
Therefore anyone above average is going to pay more than the current 170 or whatever it is.
If it gets rolled into income tax it'll be even worse as so many people don't work anyone that does will have to pick up the slack.
I highly doubt the government will slap on 170 pounds a year to the poorest.
And you can bet it'll go up every year.
170 per household is what needs to be taken to hit current funding. Unless you think it'll be 170 (ie a set amount) per address, it'll be more expensive for higher earners.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,316
- Location
- UK
I don't think the government will incorporate the licence fee in to other forms of tax. The government is about plucking chickens without squawking. Adding another £4bn to the tax bill and there would most certainly be squawks. My guess is that they will continue kicking the can down the road.
Last edited:
It wouldn't be popular, it would probably cost Labour another vote.
I can see the BBC pushing for it though. They aren't going to survive in the real world and they have done absolutely nothing to modernize. They seem to just want to keep things the same as they were 30 years ago, except with minimal and low budget content.
Last edited:
Why is there never an option to reform the BBC? Have it as a basic news and education service and moving the rest into a commercial operation for the benefit of the BBC as a whole? I'm not interested in live content, there is so little BBC content to peak my interest that I am happy to go without. Forcing everyone to pay for bargain hunt is definitely not the answer we should be seeking.
The BBC operates on a 10 year royal charter setting out the arrangements for the governance of the British Broadcasting Corporation. It, and an accompanying agreement recognise its editorial independence and set out its public obligations.
The current charter runs out 31 Dec 2027 so there will be negotiations starting soon.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 3,316
- Location
- UK
The main problem with the BBC is that it's been spoon-fed money ever since it was created, and that's a recipe for disaster.
The BBC knows how to make money, it's doing that very well in the USA, it just needs to be cut free to sort it's own mess out. We don't even need to work out how they will make money in future. Just tell them to go away and do what all the other companies do - sort it out for themselves.
If they did that now, they would be out of business in weeks. They cannot complete with streaming services.
The government need to set a date when the licence will go and if they haven't sorted themselves out by then, then it's too bad. They deserve to shut down.
Last edited:
It's same with everything.
How many public services are dire due to poor regulation but a regalator exists?
Energy companies going bust when it should have been a concern. Water companies dumping sewage and suddenly having to raise prices loads vs gradually over time.
At least BBC is somewhat accountable. If it produces really dire stuff people can opt out. Sure they have to ditch loads of other services. But that's what's happening.
Roll it into tax and that will be that forever. It can produce worse content, ask for more and more from the tax, and just waste money away
Once it goes into a tax (whatever that is) it's done. It loses effective accountability
How many public services are dire due to poor regulation but a regalator exists?
Energy companies going bust when it should have been a concern. Water companies dumping sewage and suddenly having to raise prices loads vs gradually over time.
At least BBC is somewhat accountable. If it produces really dire stuff people can opt out. Sure they have to ditch loads of other services. But that's what's happening.
Roll it into tax and that will be that forever. It can produce worse content, ask for more and more from the tax, and just waste money away
Once it goes into a tax (whatever that is) it's done. It loses effective accountability