Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailor
I don't see that you can compare a road tax licence to a TV licence.
Monies generated by road tax licences goes to the upkeep of the roads whereas the licence fee funds the BBC's programs. If the TV licence fee in someway maintained the transmission equipment that my TV utilised then it would be comparable but it doesn't. You could argue it did that very thing years ago but times have changed.
|
The comparison was to show the difference between a service-based subscription (which the licence fee is not, regardless of how many people complain about paying dor something they 'don't use') and a flat fee regardless of usage, which the licence fee, and the Road Fund Licence, are.
However, seeing as you mention it, the BBC is spending your licence fee on a transmitter network that benefits more than just BBC programming - it's called Freeview.
---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Action Jackson
I don't see that analogy as being a very good one to be honest.
A tax disc allows you to drive on all UK roads and the money is used to fund construction/maintenance of all UK roads. The license fee money is for the BBC only, not all channels.
The BBC equivalent of the tax disc would be one that only allowed you to drive on all the motorways but none of the A or B roads.
|
So you would be in favour of a TV licence if the money raised by it was used to pay for public service broadcasting requirements on, say, ITV and Channel 5 as well, rather than exclusively on the BBC?