TV Licence article Discussion

Zapito

DavidP24 wrote: »

Funny how Sky do not have this problem because they have a subscription model and the broadcasts are encrypted, the BBC can do the same.

Just how much of Sky would you get for under £150 per annum? With no ads?

enfield_freddy

Niv wrote: »

Simple solution - add £10 per month to council tax and then get rid of the licence fee. Use the money raised via the £10 on CT to fund BBC as the licence used to. Don't stipulate that's what its for, just say BBC is now funded via local government contributions or some such rubbish.

but why should we pay the BBC , if you want sky , you pay sky , if you want vigin you pay virgin , you don't have virgin and pay sky £10 a month , so why pay anyone apart from the supplier you want


remove the licence fee , change the BBC to subscription , and then its upto them to get subscribers , just as sky/virgin had to do , by providing good content.


if they continue to pour out &rap then they will get no subscribers

Zapito

cw18 wrote: »

But from what I read on here they seem to hound people who are legally licence free, and it seems I may be unusual in not having had any hassle (either by mail or by way of a visit) in the almost 5 years since I cancelled my licence.

If it's true that people are being unjustly hounded then I would agree that's a problem which needs to be tackled. But that's a whole different ball game from completely destroying the present licencing structure and building up something else from scratch.

Zapito

enfield_freddy wrote: »

but why should we pay the BBC ... ... why pay anyone apart from the supplier you want

Because that way everything sinks to the lowest common denominator.

Of course BBC is in a unique and a somewhat privileged position, which is a very large part of the reason why so much of its output is regarded as the best in the world. That alone, plus the fact of its total lack of advertising, makes it well worth keeping. It is part of this country's heritage.

Zapito

enfield_freddy wrote: »

if they continue to pour out &rap then they will get no subscribers

If only I could believe that. Unfortunately experience elsewhere (eg USA) indicates otherwise!

Zapito

DavidP24 wrote: »

Where a friend of mine lives there are a lot of people moving so he had a Capita Goon coming around every week, the a-wipe got agressive with one person and has now been booted out by the management. They are no longer given access and are told to send reminders or get a warrant.

There you go - problem solved. No need to dismantle the whole system, simply tackle injustice wherever it occurs.

markharding557

I'm taking the mid point on the TV license issue and think then following should be done:

Cut the number of BBC TV channels to two, like it was back in the day, the BBC served it's purpose just fine then.

No renewal of highly paid entertainers contracts

Examine the use of sponsorship to cover part of programming costs.

Cut out the dead wood from management.

If they were to implement these things then a substantial reduction in the fee could be possible.:)

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

There you go - problem solved. No need to dismantle the whole system, simply tackle injustice wherever it occurs.

I'm not sure how you got that from DavidP24's post.

The problems with TV Licensing are completely endemic - and I don't know whether it's that way because the BBC and Capita are lazy and incompetent or whether it's driven in that direction because it couldn't function if it played by the normal rules of Law and decency. Or perhaps a bit of both.

Either way, the BBC has had 24 years to get it right, and has failed. So I'm not wildly enthusiastic about giving them another chance - not that they have admitted any problems, yet.

Zapito

markharding557 wrote: »

I'm taking the mid point on the TV license issue and think then following should be done:

Cut the number of BBC TV channels to two, like it was back in the day, the BBC served it's purpose just fine then.

Disagree. The BBC has proved itself to be a leader in innovation regarding new technology, and long may be so.

No renewal of highly paid entertainers contracts

Certainly they need to proceed with far greater caution than in the past, which I think they are doing.

Examine the use of sponsorship to cover part of programming costs.

Disagree. I think this would be the thin end of a wedge which would lead eventually to full scale advertising. It would also interfere with the BBC's impartiality.

Cut out the dead wood from management.

Yes. That should be an ongoing process.

I would add the following:

Require registration and introduce a charge for BBC internet services for anyone who does not have a licence (eg overseas).

Facilitate more marketing of products associated with BBC productions.

End the free licences for over 75s or, if that proves politically impossible, then only allow free licences for households when there is no-one in the household under 75.

If there is not one already, introduce a small levy on new Freeview receivers at point of sale, to help subsidise the licence fee.

Increase the level of democratisation for licence holders. We should be treated more like shareholders rather than mere consumers.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm not sure how you got that from DavidP24's post.

David said it himself:

DavidP24 wrote: »

Where a friend of mine lives there are a lot of people moving so he had a Capita Goon coming around every week, the a-wipe got agressive with one person and has now been booted out by the management.

IE there was a problem, and a solution was found:

They are no longer given access and are told to send reminders or get a warrant.

QED