TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
Shadowness said:
I can't see that happening. The backlash of forcing people to pay for something they don't/won't use would be enormous.
Click to expand...
Taxes are already full of stuff people dont personally use but others do use. However, it would be politically hard to do it and council tax needs completely overhauling anyway given its hideously regressive nature but thats another subject entirely..

I think they should move the world service to general taxation and a subscription for the TV/radio services.
 
darkgen said:
As I say. I do not have a TV license and do not watch live broadcasts but I do listen to radio, primarily LBC, but occasionally I may dip in to and out of BBC Radio. The infrastructure to support DAB broadcasting must cost something.
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to what the radio costs are. As you don't need to pay the TV licence fee to listen to BBC radio, if nobody paid the TV licence, how would it work for radio?
 
Nabinium said:
I'm curious as to what the radio costs are. As you don't need to pay the TV licence fee to listen to BBC radio, if nobody paid the TV licence, how would it work for radio?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's an oddity, considering how much some of these presenters are paid plus the equipment and studios to support the broadcasts. Yet, presumably, those costs are covered via the TV license.
 
If they add it on to general taxation, and with that make people pay for something they don't use, i'm voting for the first person who says they will abolish 'not defund' abolish the BBC and i don't care who that might be, it could be Rupert Lowe or Zack Polanski.... I don't care.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to understand the argument - if people don't pay TV licence (tax) then BBC folds, but how would that be any different to if people don't pay Netflix, they fold too. It's a business.

So what are connotations of the BBC no longer existing, compared to the like of Netflix etc?

EDIT: And to the argument of people are forced to pay taxes for things they don't use/apply to them, yes there are many ways my council tax doesn't benefit me directly, but the community as a whole it does - so I likely indirectly benefit from it.

Is that the case for the BBC tax?
 
Last edited:
Shadowness said:
So what are connotations of the BBC no longer existing, compared to the like of Netflix etc?
Click to expand...
the News section obviously needs to be broken off .. if GenZ were just consuming youtube/truth-central/facebook what could go wrong.

Shadowness said:
I can't see that happening. The backlash of forcing people to pay for something they don't/won't use would be enormous.
Click to expand...
like the libraries, or, cultural stuff like theatres/museum/galleries (OK I see you have now cottoned onto that)
 
If it gets rolled into tax, then it needs to be split into actual public service stuff (news, children's educational programmes and so on) and then the "entertainment" stuff needs to be spun off and ad supported. No one should have to pay tax to fund stuff like Eastenders, Strictly Come Dancing or Escape To The Country.

It's already bad enough that allegedly you need to pay to watch live streaming on Amazon or Netflix. I say allegedly as I was reading a discussion that I can't find now, and apparently the rules don't really define "broadcast tv" because streaming wasn't a thing, so it's just tv licensing claiming so. Could be a load of nonsense, but it seems strange that live stream from someones house=fine, live stream from Amazon=not fine, even though neither are being broadcast on tv.
 
Bundling the entire BBC corp. into general tax, alongside other services you may not use, would be the most straightforward solution (outside of TV licensing).
The other alternative is that you spin off the TV arm of the BBC and keep the rest under "TV" licensing/general/digital media tax. But i don't believe the crayon eaters would allow that either.

Shadowness said:
The backlash of forcing people to pay for something they don't/won't use would be enormous.
Click to expand...
humbug said:
..and with that make people pay for something they don't use..
Click to expand...
We already pay for lots of services we don't use through taxation yet no one riots or pretends their 'ard and stops paying tax...

Shadowness said:
I'm trying to understand the argument - if people don't pay TV licence (tax) then BBC folds, but how would that be any different to if people don't pay Netflix, they fold too. It's a business.
Click to expand...
You're comparing a TV streaming business to a public service corporation which does provide TV and TV programming but also provides news (including regional), radio (also regional), education, R&D, weather etc.
Unfortunately this is the prime crux of this thread, folk wrongly assuming the BBC is just TV.
 
Shadowness said:
Examples please?
Click to expand...
Differs from one person to the next but education, social and benefit services are some that i personally don't use.

And before someone comments with some "gotcha", no i don't have an issue with my taxes going towards these services for other citizens nor am i comparing Eastenders to these government services, but i am highlighting how we (may) pay for services through taxation that we don't necessarily use directly.
IMO, i don't believe sticking another public service in the mix would be noticeable to the majority of taxpayers but again, the shortsightedness of some will kick up a stink and won't allow it.
 
Last edited:
Rainmaker said:
I don't have a TV license as I don't need one, and I have my own issues with the whole BBC situation. However, your comment instantly made me think you can buy a subscription now if you really wanted — it'd cost you about £11 a month (cheaper than Netflix), and they call it a TV license. :cry:
Click to expand...
The TV licence is £180 so it would be £15 a month not £11 but I think they charge it over 11 months not 12 so you would have to pay then ask for a refund.

I should be able to buy a monthly sub just for iPlayer or BBC Sounds and cancel whenever I want to without getting threatening emails and letters or having to fill out declarations.
 
shifty_uk said:
It’s the crowd who don’t pay, don’t watch, but still treat the BBC like it’s personally wronged them that does my head in..
Click to expand...
They abused the email address I used for the no licence required declaration to spam me with emails asking me to buy a licence so I unsubscribed. Then they wrote to me again instead which went in the bin, then they emailed me again despite me having unsubscribed, my reply was less than polite.

Its easy to see how they upset people when they keep sending threatening letters and emails to people that aren’t using their services.

shifty_uk said:
Always lazy, undefined criticism.. and when you try to argue, the response comes down to ‘aye but Savile’..
Click to expand...
Yeah all the presenters I watched as a kid got thrown in jail so yeah lets defund the BBC because that will fix everything :cry:
 
NetMan said:
I should be able to buy a monthly sub just for iPlayer or BBC Sounds and cancel whenever I want to without getting threatening emails and letters or having to fill out declarations.
Click to expand...
And that is the key thing here. You don't receive threatening letters from Netflix after cancelling their subscription. Why? Because you can't access Netflix without a subscription, yet you can still access iPlayer without paying the TV licence fee.

So no, the current TV licence isn't a subscription @Rainmaker
 
Nabinium said:
And that is the key thing here. You don't receive threatening letters from Netflix after cancelling their subscription. Why? Because you can't access Netflix without a subscription, yet you can still access iPlayer without paying the TV licence fee.

So no, the current TV licence isn't a subscription @Rainmaker
Click to expand...
I was being facetious, hence the emoji. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom