Ban the TV Licence

cw18

skitler wrote: »

I pay my £0 annually.:rotfl:

me too - since 1st Jan 2011

monitored my view in retrospect for the first 9.5 months of 2010, and didn't think I'd watched much broadcast TV. monitored in real time for the next 2.5 months (given they wouldn't refund that portion of a quarter) and found I actually watched less than I'd thought. so I've not had the ability to receive 'live' broadcast TV since then.

[Deleted User]

cw18 wrote: »

me too - since 1st Jan 2011

I've been LLF since 1st Jan 2010, which has saved me £724-50 so far.

It'll be over a grand, by the time the LF freeze ends. :cool:

skitler

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

But, by paying it monthly, I earn more interest on my £0.

oh yes, how very mse of you.:money:


youll soon have enough for a free month.;)

cepheus

I think viewers should be able to opt out of adverts and obtain a rebate from the commercial corporations (Sky, Virgin, ITV) on their advertising revenue. That will also create a level playing field with those who wish to opt out of the BBC.

The Beeb should be paid through income tax with those who don't wish to receive it applying for a rebate, minus the educational revenue necessary to repair the damage from watching too much crap.

Cornucopia

cepheus wrote: »

I think viewers should be able to opt out of adverts and obtain a rebate from the commercial corporations (Sky, Virgin, ITV) on their advertising revenue. That will also create a level playing field with those who wish to opt out of the BBC.

How would that work, exactly? The commercial broadcasters receive some or all of their funding through advertising. If you were able to opt out of ads, you would need to pay them (or pay them more) for that privilege.

If you are imagining that there would be a reduction in shop prices as a result of people opting out of ads (and paying for TV content directly), you would of course need legislation to prevent advertisers from swapping their ad-spend to alternative media.

All sounds a bit of a faff to get to a "level playing-field" with the BBC that isn't even necessary. Not to mention the possibility of damaging a vibrant part of the economy.

[Deleted User]

cepheus wrote: »

The Beeb should be paid through income tax with those who don't wish to receive it applying for a rebate

Why should I have to apply for a rebate, of something I'm not liable for in the first place?

I don't have to buy a Rod Licence, then apply to get my money back.

skitler

can someone please invent a device that will change channel when the adverts come on, to a channel that is not on adverts at that time and then switch back automatically to the channel you where watching when the ads have finished.


well you don't need to invent it, ive just done that (I invent stuff all the time, that bit is easy) but someone to get it to work.


Ive tried using the wife but she's [EMAIL="bl@@dy"]bl@@dy[/EMAIL] useless with the remote.:rotfl:

prowla

I have a device which allows me to skip ads - it's called a Sky+ box.

If I am watching something live, then I've got a couple of other devices which allow me to skip the ads - my legs! (I leave the room to make a cuppa or something.)

Another thing is that the TV "On Demand" recordings don't include ads.

skitler

prowla wrote: »

I have a device which allows me to skip ads - it's called a Sky+ box.

If I am watching something live, then I've got a couple of other devices which allow me to skip the ads - my legs! (I leave the room to make a cuppa or something.)

Another thing is that the TV "On Demand" recordings don't include ads.

I don't want any yanky crap on my tv,


Im not that energetic to keep getting up, I like things automatic.


we don't get on demand on free-view


ive tried to demand her to change channel, but the look she gives me, its just not worth the hassle.

cepheus

Cornucopia wrote: »

How would that work, exactly? The commercial broadcasters receive some or all of their funding through advertising. If you were able to opt out of ads, you would need to pay them (or pay them more) for that privilege.

If you are imagining that there would be a reduction in shop prices as a result of people opting out of ads (and paying for TV content directly), you would of course need legislation to prevent advertisers from swapping their ad-spend to alternative media.

All sounds a bit of a faff to get to a "level playing-field" with the BBC that isn't even necessary. Not to mention the possibility of damaging a vibrant part of the economy.

The rebate to the opt out viewer would come from businesses in the form of an advertising tax, perhaps in place of a corporation tax. All businesses which choose not to advertise on TV would qualify for a reduction in this. Newspapers and electronic media could be dealt with in the same way.

This would be an important landmark since viewers would then realise advertising channels are NOT free, and they pay for them ostensibly. Of course this doesn't guarantee the price of products would be reduced by non-advertisers, but if money isn't spent on advertising there is a spare pot of money to do as the business wishes. The removal of the pernicious influence of advertising would be a great bonus.