tv licence guess what ?

Originally Posted by Stuart W

I think the TV lisence is an out and out CON. I do watch BBC and I agree they do make some damn fine programmes, but I only watch BBC1 & BBC2. I don't listen to the radio (except sometimes internet radio, which is comercial) and I don't have digital TV.

Agreed and those fine good programs you call can still be made via adverts if their good.

Also adverts are not that bad either. We all have bladder's and like a drink, something to eat in-between program's

[downquark1]

I listen to radio 4. I think the bbc is an institution. They used their equipment to aid in WW2.

[Enterian]

It's just another stealth tax, this government loves 'em. Next they'll be introducing compulsory ID cards and making us pay for them!

.......oh damn, they seem to have already thought of that!

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Enterian

It's just another stealth tax, this government loves 'em.

Yer right, 'cos it was Tony Blair that had the idea of creating a national broadcaster!

Sometimes people try to turn everything into a political issue

I like the BBC, I use the service, I think it is well worth the money.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by dellwear

Thinking about his again, I guess we pay for the privilege of having a telly,

and you have to ask yourself why does beurocracy state that you pay for a tv then have a licence for it

Originally Posted by dellwear

its not really an issue where the money goes to is it?

yes because if its going to one company it is unfair on the other channels the constant yearly increase to the BBC is shockingly high the money spent is wasted on presenters and in house productions but where is the 'quality' entertainment ?

Originally Posted by dellwear

I don't mean to offend K, but this is the mentality of this country now "I'm alright Jack"

I find it rather saddening.

well you have misunderstood my point i shall go no further on that

[kronas]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

The BBC signal should be scrambled, so those that dont want to pay extortion money can opt out and not receive BBC signals (including radio......who actually enjoys Radio one?).

now there is a sensible idea ofcourse its not economically viable is what they will say

Originally Posted by KingPhoenix

Not meaning to sound funny or anything..... but do you actually pay a tv license???

that is funny because yes we do as in my family thats not relavant what is that we pay it if you dont and get caught out you wil be penalised

[zaax]

Originally Posted by downquark1

The experience of American TV has caused me to want to defend the BBC with my life. the digital channels are merely to competely technologically. Beside some people like repeats if they have busy scheduels.

your not kdding they manage to make a 45min episode of star trek last 1 1/2 hours

The licence fee is well worth it.

[Jerrek]

Ah the foolishness and ignorance of the masses.

A Star Trek episode is 40 minutes long, and it is stretched to fit 1 hour. Not 1 1/2 hours.

[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.

[Bifta]

£5 a year, that's approx. 1.4 pence a day, you tightwads! Prices increase on just about everything, every year, live with it! (And why am I not surprised that Kronas is being all indignant about it when he doesn't actually pay for one .. sad)

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).

There's no need for a TV LICENCE in this day and age and what really ****'s me off is the BBC brigade being selfish insisting everyone should pay for it because we wont it


Well I say F#ckem

[altis]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

... 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.

Not quite true, I'm afraid - see, for example, this letter.

You only need a licence if you actually watch or record any television service that is broadcast from the UK.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

I have a valid idea.

<snip>
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.

Hmmm - that would be every car owner in the country.

How much would it cost to issue each of these £10 licences? How much would end up in the pockets of the BBC once the bank charges, ee costs, database costs, post office fees, printing costs had been taken out £4?

Considering freeview boxes are now down to the price of a night out or a couple of takeaways (£40) I thing DTV take up will increase.

The BBC output has other benefits also. CBeebies / Childrens BBC means you can let you children watch cartoons without having adverts forced down their throats, similar to Disney channels at £5 a month - try watching milkshake (five) on a morning and the adverts for crap presents are astounding.