TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
Doesn't matter.
It'll fail. If they don't. And that's worse to the government than annoying people who don't pay.

Why should we rescue it? It's failing because it's crap and people don't want to pay for it anymore. What clearer message is there that is isn't needed or wanted than people voting with their wallet.
 
Last edited:
Why should we rescue it? It's failing because it's crap and people don't want to pay for it anymore. What clearer message is there that is isn't needed or wanted than people voting with their wallet.

The government don't like rocking the boat. Plus it's not very labour. Plus they'd have to deal with all the pensions etc.

They'll do whatever is easiest. And I can't see anything easier than rolling it into CT.

I doubt the number of households paying CT changes much.

Plus the majority of people pay the TV licence and many of them will get a discount if those of us who do not pay have to suddenly pay.

It will likely be broadly popular. Or at worst, broadly neutral
 
Last edited:
The government don't like rocking the boat. Plus it's not very labour. Plus they'd have to deal with all the pensions etc.

They'll do whatever is easiest. And I can't see anything easier than rolling it into CT.

I doubt the number of households paying CT changes much.

Plus the majority of people pay the TV licence and many of them will get a discount if those of us who do not pay have to suddenly pay.

It will likely be broadly popular. Or at worst, broadly neutral

I bet we won't. The BBC will want to make a killing from it and then inflate it yearly.
 
I know this thread is cyclical. But I'll say it again anyway.

I'd be "ok" with paying for news, education even radio via general tax/ct.
But I'd expect sport, soaps, game shows and tat like that to be spun off.
That can all be accessed elsewhere.

There's too much non core waste in BBC currently for me to be happy with it being all bundled into tax.

But I also know this won't happen. Because it's too difficult for the government. And it'll just all go into some inescapable tax.
 
Last edited:
I cant see it working.

The point of the licence supposedly is to fund the broadcast infrastructure, how can you make that argument when it comes to a paid for service delivered via infrastructure you pay seperately for?
 
I cant see it working.

The point of the licence supposedly is to fund the broadcast infrastructure, how can you make that argument when it comes to a paid for service delivered via infrastructure you pay seperately for?
That hasn't been true for ages though. It funds the BBC. The infrastructure part is tiny
 
That hasn't been true for ages though. It funds the BBC. The infrastructure part is tiny

Yeah, but that was at least part of its nominal purpose.

My point is that streaming services you're paying for the content and you're paying for the infrastructure. So what would be the stated reason to charge more?
 
But if they are sticking their fee on top of Amazon/Netflix etc that is profiting from what they have built.

If they are forced in to this they should bill the BBC for piggybacking on their platform, or to fetch data from it (the same amount they would add to the subscription) and then refund it to their customers to neutralise the BBC. Wipe out any profits they hope to make from it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but that was at least part of its nominal purpose.

My point is that streaming services you're paying for the content and you're paying for the infrastructure. So what would be the stated reason to charge more?

Because the government can.
Its far away from what it was originally. So moving the goalposts is fine.

What can anyone do anyway?

You can vote for another party? But that would only be reform I expect. And 200 quid a year sucks. But I'm not voting for reform over it.

Tbh, I don't even think reform would do it.
 
Back
Top Bottom