TV licence non payment could be made a civil offence

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

The difference is that the other providers are commercial enterprises the BBC isn't ,i do agree however that things must change .The BBC should be much more accountable instead of the old boys club it is perceived to be now .Possibly separating the news and education side from the entertainment side is an option

If the BBC is so good then a subscription system would work because those that like it would pay for it, the fact is they are nowhere near as good as they think they are and they would have to dare i say it buck there ideas up so they keep there level of funding. Lets face it if there output is crap then they will soon find out as would they if there output was good. they would sooner sit on the fence pay high wages and redundancy payments to high earning managers and cry there poor to the Government.

Originally Posted by martyh

like i said it is a choice of sorts ,just not the choice you want .There is no way to make it fair to everybody and at the moment a licence of £145 p/a is the fairest way all round imo

Then make it a subscription fee via a decoder of £145.00 because if you think the BBC's output is that good then there is no problem with a subscription is there. Then i and other dont have to fund something we dont want to watch.

Originally Posted by Sirius

If the BBC is so good then a subscription system would work because those that like it would pay for it, the fact is they are nowhere near as good as they think they are and they would have to dare i say it buck there ideas up so they keep there level of funding. Lets face it if there output is crap then they will soon find out as would they if there output was good. they would sooner sit on the fence pay high wages and redundancy payments to high earning managers and cry there poor to the Government.



Then make it a subscription fee via a decoder of £145.00 because if you think there that good then there is no problem with a subscription is there. Then i and other dont have to fund something we dont want to watch.

The whole point of the BBC is for it to be a public broadcast service not a for profit organisation like Sky.A subscription fee would be far greater than the current licence fee and it would only keep rising putting quality tv beyond the ability to pay for the poorest in society .The BBC make some fantastic programs that would be lost if it relied on subscriptions and the guarantee of funds makes it possible for such programming to be made and as i have said those funds must be used much more wisely and in the public interest

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by martyh

The whole point of the BBC is for it to be a public broadcast service not a for profit organisation like Sky.A subscription fee would be far greater than the current licence fee and it would only keep rising putting quality tv beyond the ability to pay for the poorest in society .The BBC make some fantastic programs that would be lost if it relied on subscriptions and the guarantee of funds makes it possible for such programming to be made and as i have said those funds must be used much more wisely and in the public interest

So what, BMW make some fantastic cars, but I don't have to pay them in order to drive my Ford.

The BBC is on it's way out, and they know it. They'll never go subscription because they would quickly go bust.

And they have made profits.

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

So what, BMW make some fantastic cars, but I don't have to pay them in order to drive my Ford.

The BBC is on it's way out, and they know it. They'll never go subscription because they would quickly go bust.

And they have made profits.

The BBC is not on it's way out at all ,maybe the way it is funded will change,even the way it is operated but we will always have a public broadcast service ,at least for the foreseeable future.

And they have made profits

BBC worldwide make profits which are used to subsidise the licence fee not pay shareholders

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

The existence of the BBC in its current gargantuan form is not a given. The world of broadcasting and the way people consume and pay for it is in a state of flux. Who can foresee what will happen in the next few years?

As for the magistrates courts the solution is in their own hands: Just dish out a token fine of say £1 and not award costs to TVL prosecutors. I guarantee the cases will dry up in a matter of weeks.

I have no doubt that the BBC will change ,i think it must change but imo it must remain a public service ,just about every country in the developed world has a public tv service and all are funded either by general tax,a licence such as ours or other somewhat imaginative methods ,fancy paying for the beeb on your gas or electric bill ,or even a tax on receiving equipment

I might be able to see a future where the BBC can charge a subscription worldwide and then in the UK too but I would want to see a licence fee, albeit cheaper, remain in place for public service broadcasting such as national events, school programs, education programs, and the news.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris

Plenty of our public services make money from their products and facilities when they are supplied in a way other than for their public service obligation. Hiring of school premises on evenings and weekends immediately springs to mind. Yet that doesn't make our schools or councils "commercial".

It is perfectly reasonable for a public service provider, having fulfilled its obligations to the taxpayer, to find other ways of supplementing its income in order to further enhance its public services.

If BBC Worldwide did not sell products overseas the BBC would have less money and would be able to do less in the UK.

Universities are another. Every university does research which is linked with outside companies. The profits generated from that research are usually ploughed back into the Uni and used to improved facilities at the Uni.

Hospitals are yet another. The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital , despite being an NHS hospital, used to have a couple of wards that were only open to private patients. Any profits generated by these wards were ploughed back into the facilities offered to BOTH NHS and private patients.

I would not consider any taxpayer funded University or Hospital to be commercial though.

[AdamD]

It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't have umpteen senior managers/directors getting the equivalent of fat cat wages.

Not to mention the millions spent on redundancy.

Schools should be funded for all, it's a necessity in life (Education that is)
An entertainment TV/Radio station, should not be publicly funded.
If I want to watch quality shows, I will pay for them. I shouldn't be forced to pay the BBC for watching Game of thrones, which IS worth the money spent on it.

So only those who can afford it should be able to watch 'quality' shows?

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So only those who can afford it should be able to watch 'quality' shows?

Yes.

Surely that's a fairer way rather than making everyone pay who watches live TV like Sky Sports who don't see any of the money you have to pay to the BBC.

Originally Posted by Mythica

Yes.

Surely that's a fairer way rather than making everyone pay who watches live TV like Sky Sports who don't see any of the money you have to pay to the BBC.

No it's not ,all that would happen is the subscription cost would continue to rise as less and less people subscribe because of the rising cost .Having a licence fee keeps the cost down and ensures that quality programming is available to all to suit most tastes .

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

No it's not ,all that would happen is the subscription cost would continue to rise as less and less people subscribe because of the rising cost .Having a licence fee keeps the cost down and ensures that quality programming is available to all to suit most tastes .

So your answer is to force people to pay the tax even if they don't watch the BBC because by your way the BBC benefits because people watch other providers. Why should i be forced to have to pay for something i don't use just so YOU get it cheaper ?????


If the BBC is so good then it will still get subscribers however if people think there output is crap then they wont, and whose fault will that be. If that is the case then maybe they will start to produce good stuff unlike now where they don't give a crap because they are guaranteed a fortune in tax each year

Originally Posted by Sirius

So your answer is to force people to pay the tax even if they don't watch the BBC because by your way the BBC benefits because people watch other providers. Why should i be forced to have to pay for something i don't use just so YOU get it cheaper ?????


If the BBC is so good then it will still get subscribers however if people think there output is crap then they wont, and whose fault will that be. If that is the case then maybe they will start to produce good stuff unlike now where they don't give a crap because they are guaranteed a fortune in tax each year

Why should people pay substantially more for a public service because you don't use it?? Your dislike of the BBC isn't shared by everyone and a large part of the population rely on the BBC as their only source of entertainment because they can't afford subscription tv ,they rely on freeview tv which probably wouldn't exist had the licence fee been scrapped

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

Why should people pay substantially more for a public service because you don't use it?? Your dislike of the BBC isn't shared by everyone and a large part of the population rely on the BBC as their only source of entertainment because they can't afford subscription tv ,they rely on freeview tv which probably wouldn't exist had the licence fee been scrapped

WHY should i be forced to pay for something i dont use ????????????????????????

But if they are already paying the Tv tax so making it subscription at the same amount would not be a problem would it.

So if i read your answer correctly your answer to this is just to force this on everyone and let the bbc continue to take the **** and not have to produce programs that are worth people paying for unlike everyone else.

But they're saying subscription could be twice the cost of the current licence fee, and also recommend charging for watching through iPlayer.

How would the radio channels work through subscription?