TV Licence article Discussion

cw18

Cornucopia wrote: »

Personally, I would not object to a universal tax approach (as long as it had some form of means-adjustment).

I don't see why I should pay for a service I don't use. If my house ran on electricity only I wouldn't have to pay a standing charge to a gas supplier until such times as I had a gas service connected. And if I were on a private water supply I believe (based on what a relative in that situation tells me) I'd only pay something towards surface water drainage - no kind of water in/out standing charges just in case I felt like using their services at a later date (until such times as I did).

MKfella

Andy_L wrote: »

What have they said when you got in touch about their error?

So far I haven't contacted them.
I don't like letting this sort of thing slide, and there is an element of civic duty: but at the same time I'm not sure I want to get enmeshed in what would probably be a tetchy and lengthy correspondence: venting here might be the end of it.

JimmyTheWig

cw18 wrote: »

I don't see why I should pay for a service I don't use.

That's the way public services work.
You don't get a reduction in your council tax if you don't ever put your bins out.

Cornucopia

I think there are good arguments in both directions for the BBC (to be either a "proper" tax-funded public service or a subscription service that requires no further protection to its revenue other than the technical and practical measures it can muster within contract law).

Where it is now, though, is in an unhappy and possibly unlawful no-man's-land. It is neither universally funded and valued, nor is it prepared to settle back into a properly constituted subscription service.

cw18

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

That's the way public services work.
You don't get a reduction in your council tax if you don't ever put your bins out.

But I don't consider the BBC to be a public service. There are other providers can give me equivalent services, in the same way I can swap Internet Provider and Gas/Electricity providers.




And don't get me started on reductions for not putting bins out!! I'm totally ripped off there (put my bins out every 3 months if that - even the half sized ones), but accept that the lorries have to turn up just in case I've decided to put them out. At least I get a 25% discount for living on my own

JimmyTheWig

cw18 wrote: »

But I don't consider the BBC to be a public service. There are other providers can give me equivalent services, in the same way I can swap Internet Provider and Gas/Electricity providers.

Fair point. I don't agree with you, but it's a valid argument.

[Deleted User]

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

That's the way public services work.

I don't see the BBC as a public service.

Cornucopia

I think the BBC certainly sees itself as a public service, as does the Government (most of the time).

For me, there are a few criteria that could help determine how close/how far the BBC is to being a true public service... uniqueness, timeliness, being essential (as far as a broadcaster could ever be essential), cost effectiveness, engaging with the Public and serving needs that are not met elsewhere, or are only met elsewhere at a much higher cost.

It's possibly not a definitive list, but I think it forms a basis upon which to analyse the present-day BBC.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

uniqueness, timeliness, being essential (as far as a broadcaster could ever be essential), cost effectiveness, engaging with the Public and serving needs that are not met elsewhere

Universality and guaranteed service standards.

Jackmydad

I've got this feeling that both the BBC, and the government, spin out the "public service" agenda, while being much more of a "self service" in reality.
I think that the links between them are a lot closer than that which is seen on the surface as well.
Too much "propaganda" in the BBC content somehow.