Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

No, of course it's not. Culture is only for those that can afford the price of a theatre ticket, after all. The plebs can huddle round the wireless.

Honestly daddy, of all the bone-headed comments ... TV's impact on our national life has been immense. It has made culture and entertainment universally available, has played an important role in creating and maintaining a sense of British national identity and has transformed our outlook on the world - the modern success of major fund raising events like Sport Relief is directly attributable to TV images of the famine in Ethiopia, which wasn't the first or the biggest the world had ever seen, but was communicated in a way no other humanitarian disaster had ever been up to that point.

A basic TV service, providing news and catering for as wide a range of tastes and outlooks as possible, is of course absolutely essential.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

:clap::tu:

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I wasn't talking about normal tax, I was referring to Stuart's assertion that tv is essential for schools. Do they only watch the BBC?

a very well articulated point and I genuinely agree. But surely such an essential service should sell/run on its own merits if it is so amazing and shouldn't have to rely to a legislated budget where £billions of income is guaranteed and you basically have a free reign to do whatever you want. If they had to work to provide a quality service and failure to do so with result in reduced income (subscription channel package) or share prices then I am sure we would see a completely different BBC.

If you took away the mandatory license fee and said to everyone "you can either pay £12/month for the BBC or £20/month for 270 channels with Sky" what do you think they would choose. At the moment I am paying half my Sky subscription again for a few channels which I never watch. Or the other way to look at is that I am legally forced to pay 1/3 of my tv subscription for a channel package that I don't want.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

TV has had its day, it's great achievements are in the past, long distant past in most cases, if people were watching it they wouldn't need to think of new ways to pick pockets. I also like the way you talk about the poor having to huddle round t'wireless whilst conveniently ignoring the financial burden the TV licence places upon them in the next breath, it's actually quite funny, culture is only for those that can afford a theatre ticket or a tv licence

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

I don't pay it, haven't for many years. I've saved a small fortune. :)

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Don't be absurd - the TV licence costs about £12 a month ... That's £3 a week. I have had stretches of unemployment in the past, I know what it's like to live on minimal state handouts, and I never once found it impossible to find that amount.

People are watching, that's the point. The iplayer had been so successful that it has become a loophole to avoid paying the licence. It is quite right for that loophole to be closed.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

How is it absurd, the other channels are free but the bbc tax is not, you or they shouldn't have to find any money to cover it. Scrap the tax is another way of closing the loophole to btw

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

well said dude

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

It's absurd to equate the cost of a TV licence with the price of a theatre ticket, which is what you seemed to be doing earlier. The TVL works out at around £3 a week. I took the kids to the panto last Christmas and the cheapest seats in the house were £20 *each*.

Yes, you can of course have a free-to-air national TV broadcasting service without imposing a charge on those who use it. The quality of those networks is however not so good. Even in the USA, where the advertisers potential audience is more than five times the size of the UK, free-to-air TV is swamped with cheap, low quality dross. What we see of US TV in the UK is highly distilled, has often been made to show on networks that require a subscription, and these days is normally shown in the UK on a network requiring subscription, given the producers' need to recoup the high costs of making it.

For a *tiny* contribution from all TV users in the UK, the BBC produces quality output and caters for a wide range of interests. Even for those who do not watch it, its output sets a benchmark that forces its competitors to keep their own standards up.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

How?

What to do about the fee in general is a different argument. This is about people that should already be paying for the BBC not doing so.

Closing the loophole is stopping people who are watching BBC content via iPlayer from not paying for it at the moment. So for them they'd have to pay for the BBC anyway, as they want to watch the content.

If you don't watch BBC content, then this loophole closure doesn't affect you either as you won't want to watch iPlayer content in the first place.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Just Kodi or various Android app anything you want to watch, you don't need iPlayer

BBC licence fee is a 20th Century anarchism that needs to be consigned to the dustbin, every other UK channel manages just fine with adverts.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

That's always been the case hasn't it? If you watch or record live TV then you always needed a TV licence

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

When I read/see the news every day, I wonder how well that worked out, we seem to have a lot of stupid people.

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

Maybe they should stop watching the BBC. :D

Re: BBC license change to cover catchup
 

They'll be the ones that don't watch the BBC. :D