TV License

[Rob]

Time to scrap this rediculous tax?

Price always seems to be going up quality of programming goes down.

Despite a kitty of 4.3 BILLION they continue to lose sports to Sky (3.8b) and ITV with a measly 1.9b.

Breach of human rights? Why cant they just cut off the BBC service to those who dont want it.

Discuss...

 

[tim west]

They looked at pay per view at one time for the bbc but suggested that it would be unfair competition as no one would want or be able to afford to subscribe to other PPV channels

As you state the quality has nose dived and its time we the public were given a choice

Give the bbc the right to advertise(as if they don't already do that what with stealth product placement and their own merchandise) just because it's the bbc doesn't guarantee they'll grab all the available advertising revenue, that'll depend on viewing figures.

 

[Blasphemous]

Scrap it. I suspect the reason the PPV idea got shelved was because they knew they wouldn't get the numbers they needed to sign up for yet another one of their period drama's...zzzzzzzzz! I mean, no offence, if that's your thing then fine, you watch it and you pay for it. Personally I cannot stand them and I don't see why i have to pay for them.

I agree with Tim, let them advertise. They advertise anyway with constant plugs for programmes coming up. Half the time the Ad's are better than the programmes anyway!

 

[JohnD]

the market for ads will not increase.

if UK businesses want to spend the same £Xbn a year on ads, and it gets spread over more channels, all the channels will have less money.

they might try to generate a bit more income by selling cheap airtime to your local chip shop or used car dealer, like you see on those dreadful Americal channels

 

[Deluks]

they might try to generate a bit more income by selling cheap airtime to your local chip shop or used car dealer, like you see on those dreadful Americal channels

Bloke from the local kebab shop, flogging his meat. Now that, I would pay to see!

 

[Donkmeister]

Has anyone ever watched TV in the US, or indeed in Europe? Adverts every 2 seconds, those programmes that last 20 minutes on BBC are 30 minutes in the states due to the ads.

Then if you DO subscribe to an ad-free channel, it costs three times what we pay on licence fee.

Problem with scrapping licence fee is too few people would pay up for a "BBC subscription" to save their £10 a month. So it would either go downhill or would have to cost, well, three times as much!

I think the BBC has a good mix of factual, fatuous and fictional stuff to satisfy most. Personally I never watch football but I appreciate that plenty of people want to watch it and can't afford Setanta. When they moved F1 to ITV I lost interest - you can't get into any sport when there's an ad break every 15 minutes.

Perhaps it's just what I'm used to, but I prefer watching BBC to ITV any day.

 

[Deleted member 105431]

I'm happy to pay my license fee for all the radio stations and Top gear alone.

 

[Ricky2]

I seem to remember some years back the subject of the BBC not showing National Teams on the BBC channel was thrashed out. It was at the time that ****** Murdoch started highjacking the English test matches.

The matter went all the way to the House of Commons where an assurance was given that all the time a National team was playing at home, be it Rugby, Cricket or Football, the BBC would cover it.

What happened to that assurance?

 

[Blasphemous]

I'm happy to pay my license fee for all the radio stations and Top gear alone.

Top Gear!!! Clarkson is good enough reason to stop paying a license fee for me. I cannot stand the bloke but I appreciate he must have a following... but then so did Hitler!

Its nice to see he doesn't waste the License Fee money on himself though. I mean, does he cut his own hair? And WHO buys his clothes? If I were him I'd be telling people I have a Personal Shopper and they keep getting it wrong. But like they say, be different and people remember you, be the same and they forget. He's certainly different. Perhaps its all part of the plan.

 

[^woody^]

What's a TV licence and when will I need to buy one of these?

 

[Softus]

I'm happy to pay a license fee, but I'm not very happy that part of it goes towards the following:

1. Broadcasting to people who don't buy one.
2. Postage and administration of stupid bits of paper.
3. Threatening letters sent to empty properties.
4. Detector vans.
5. People who sit in detector vans.
6. People who make detector vans.
7. People who install all the equipment in detector vans.
8. People who calibrate and service all the equipment in detector vans.
9. People who [That's enough detector van hatred, Ed.]

Given that 98.563% (don't quote me on it) of households have a TV, the answer is so simple that you could cut yourself on it:

Scrap the license, and charge every house/abode/institution in the country a license fee, and give the fee back (once per property, per year) to anyone who can prove that haven't had any "receiving equipment" at that property for a full year.

So paint me scottish and call me Prime Minister.

 

[Blasphemous]

Scrap the license, and charge every house/abode/institution in the country a license fee, and give the fee back (once per property, per year) to anyone who can prove that haven't had any "receiving equipment" at that property for a full year.

So I have to pay upfront for something I might not use then claim my money back at the end of 12 months if I don't use the service. Why should the onus be on me to 'claim back' my money if i don't have 'receiving equipment' in the first place. And call me old fashioned but I'd prefer MY money in MY account for 12 months rather than the BBC's or whoever. You may well argue that it will be a very small number of people, companies etc that will need to apply for their money back (assuming your figure of 98.563% of households have a TV is correct), but we don't know if that is correct (and I know you said don't quote you but its all that we have to work with at the minute), but I would still argue that I shouldn't have to pay for something upfront if I have no intention of using it or indeed the equipment to do so. Again, you may argue that a lot of household currently pay for utilities upfront (if they pay by Direct Debit) but they ARE using that service and they DO have the equipment to use it (Cookers, Boilers, Light Bulbs, Computers, Taps, etc etc).

I do have a TV and License by the way Softus I'm just interested in your proposition.

 

[Softus]

So I have to pay upfront for something I might not use then claim my money back at the end of 12 months if I don't use the service.

Yes.

Why should the onus be on me to 'claim back' my money if i don't have 'receiving equipment' in the first place.

Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

And call me old fashioned but I'd prefer MY money in MY account for 12 months rather than the BBC's or whoever.

You're old fashioned.

You may well argue that it will be a very small number of people, companies etc that will need to apply for their money back

It's a very small number of households.

(assuming your figure of 98.563% of households have a TV is correct), but we don't know if that is correct (and I know you said don't quote you but its all that we have to work with at the minute)

If there are 60 million people in the UK, in, say, 30 million households, then a 1% TV-ignoring minority comprises a potential 300,000 applications for a refund. It sounds like a lot of applications, but if there's another 1% who would otherwise criminally decline to buy a license, then there's no loss in revenue, and yet a signficant saving resulting from not pursuing the criminals. Depending on the exact figures you can juggle around with costs and savings, but I'm sure you get my drift.

I would still argue that I shouldn't have to pay for something upfront if I have no intention of using it or indeed the equipment to do so.

Everyone pays for the education system, and yet many people never use it.

Everyone pays for the healthcare system, and yet many people underuse it.

If you approve of TV licensing, then why don't you campaign for the introduction of a School License and a Hospital License. We could fill the roads with various types of detector vans and rid the nation of unemployment.

Again, you may argue that a lot of household currently pay for utilities upfront (if they pay by Direct Debit) but they ARE using that service and they DO have the equipment to use it (Cookers, Boilers, Light Bulbs, Computers, Taps, etc etc).

Well, we do all pay for water delivery, and many of those who are without a meter pay for more than they use.

I do have a TV and License by the way Softus I'm just interested in your proposition.

I'm glad. It's a masterpiece, and the more people who come and admire the better, but please don't use flash photography.

 

[Norcon]

Had a TV licence officer out recently wanting to know why I had no TV licence. That was after about 40 letters received over 3 years, all threw on the fire. (which helped keep me warm btw)
My only gripe about receiving them was having to bend down to pick them up.
He couldn't prove jack ..........!.

 

[Blasphemous]

At Softus...