Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lord Nikon
I have a valid idea.
How about NTL offering a "License included" package whereby they supply you a TV license for a nominal fee per month. Similar to the TVL DD scheme,
my house doesn't posess a TV antenna, my only TV reception is via NTL cable, why not have the option to tag £10 / month onto the ntl bill and pay your license that way, NTL send you a license annually and everyone is happier.
though thats just a way to remember to buy one and is slightly off topic.
Personally I feel that the TV license is bull, it should not exist.
Take a look at a typical day's BBC 1 viewing, then look also at BBC2, remember, this is all the broadcast BBC people can view without a digital platform, is it really worth the money? I think not. (not counting radio as I said VIEW)
Let the BBC issue a scrambled signal people have to pay £10 / month to view, do it on the freeview style system, but also include the other digital channels, make a radio license viable for people who want one at say £10 / year. I for one wouldn't get a BBC TV pack. but instead of FORCING everyone who OWNS equipment capable of receiving a TV signal to pay, make it so that people who WANT to watch BBC pay.
|
I think you're misunderstanding what the TV licence is for. It's not a fee for just another pack of TV channels, it's effectively a tax that is designed to support a Government policy. That policy essentially says, 'we believe there should be a broadcasting service in the UK whose programming decisions are not ultimately dictated by advertising revenues.' This arrangement allows the BBC to risk airtime on new people and ideas, as well as giving it a guaranteed pot of cash with which to make quality TV and radio programming. A huge amount of BBC output ends up as repeats on subscription-based TV channels. These channels would not have nearly enough money to make these programmes themselves if the flow of new material from the BBC dried up (which it would, if the BBC went subscription-only).