Well this is where technology is making the lf a bit anachronistic. I watch tv on a computer. I don't even own a tv. They have introduced new laws to try to deal with this, but it's becoming increasingly absurd. Watch a film on Sky on your computer, fine. Watch a single second of a football match or tennis match live, and you're breaking the law.But it should be an opt-in service. You don't even get the chance to opt out.
The BBC could scramble their signal, like Sky do, and only those who wish to pay for it would/should pay for it.
There are many people on low incomes who don't pay a licence fee. If they didn't get the been for free they would get very little television.
if been went pfv, the remains free Chanel's would probably follow that lead.
I'd be all for a concessionary rate. Be worth it for the Daily Mail frothing alone. Benefits scroungers get free tv to lounge about in front of all day.I assume you mean the Beeb. But people on low incomes aren't eligible for free licenses so I'm still confused.
But the beeb isn't freeThere are many people on low incomes who don't pay a licence fee. If they didn't get the been for free they would get very little television.
if been went pfv, the remains free Chanel's would probably follow that lead.
How very nice of the BBC.A blind person has a discounted fee as do others in care homes.
BBC also offers programmes with signing and subtitles.
A blind person has a discounted fee as do others in care homes.
BBC also offers programmes with signing and subtitles.
It wins a charter, with the fee set, then has a certain amount of autonomy in how that fee is spent. Direct funding from the tax payer would end any kind of distance between it and the govt and any pretence that it is anything other than the govt's mouthpiece.
That's exactly what the BBC is now. The only difference is you don't have a choice in whether or not you wish to pay the fee, and you have to pay whether or not you watch anything!Would you rather have pay for view, paying a few to a profit making company run by someone like Murdoch, which is what BBC could become.
You say there are no adverts, but that isn't strictly true, the BBC always has time for plenty of professional adverts promoting their own content.
Nah it's not. I am exasperated by the BBC in many ways, particularly by the way it wastes money paying a few idiots vast sums due to some mystical 'talent' they are supposed to have, but it is very very different from Sky or other for-profit media.That's exactly what the BBC is now. The only difference is you don't have a choice in whether or not you wish to pay the fee!
I'm torn.For the sake of argument, rather than paying for receiving TV, any TV, not just the BBC, (in fact paying just for owning a TV) instead the BBC all their output - TV - Radio and - web would have to be funded by advertising, product placement and sponsorship, this shouldn't be hard as their output is watched and listened to in high numbers.
So for the sake of argument: Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?
Not to let the bastards in I hopeI'm torn.
I spent quite a few weeks working in the US back in the 1990s, and was so appalled by a) the quality of television, and b) NPR's relentless solicitation of pledges and donations, that I came back to the UK thinking "thank goodness we have the BBC".
And either I've got pickier, or the quality of programming has declined, to the point that I watch barely any TV (BBC or otherwise now), and am even more disinclined to prop them up with a licence fee when I see how supine the BBC has become to the prevailing government over the last 10-20 years.
But - and this probably isn't even their fault - the thing that turns me agin the licence fee most of all is the oppressive and threatening approach used to get people to sign up to the licence. Within a day of moving in to this flat, I had a thuggish letter from the TV licensing authority that said, in terms, "we're 'avin' you, son, for watching a tell. SIgn up or else". Fuck off. I took a fairly instant decision right there.
I didn't read all those longdog posts without picking up a trick or two along the way, you know...Not to let the bastards in I hope
So who are you happy to give money to?I will not give money to shisters like sky, Amazon, virgin etc. Corporate, greedy, money grabbing, unethical Bastards that they are.
If your ethics permit you to do that, fine. It's Not for me.
The only difference is the amount people have to pay, because everyone has to pay. At least with those 'for profit' organisations, you get a choice to pay/not pay for the service, and a choice in what you watch if you do pay for it.Nah it's not. I am exasperated by the BBC in many ways, particularly by the way it wastes money paying a few idiots vast sums due to some mystical 'talent' they are supposed to have, but it is very very different from Sky or other for-profit media.
AND the corporate channels rip you off encouraging you pay to vote for a performing dog and then use the information collected as a marketing tool or sell the data on, while promoting shut food, products, companies. Want better quality like panorama, question time, art documentaries, historical documentaries or trash like I'm a celebrity, pay to vote for me and we will also sell your data on.
I'm guessing every other "Corporate, greedy, money grabbing, unethical Bastard" not on his listSo who are you happy to give money to?
Which corporations pass the hash tag ethics test?I repeat if you want to give money to the likes of Amazon and you have no ethics, that's fine.
Quoted here, one such example of why not to, with thanks to Maggot https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/alternatives-to-amazon.330129/
quoted to illustrate what is wrong with Amazon.
Would be happy to pay increased taxes to keep BBC free with similar standards to mow.
Maybe you're well off enough to pay those higher prices than some of us.I repeat if you want to give money to the likes of Amazon and you have no ethics, that's fine.
Quoted here, one such example of why not to, with thanks to Maggot https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/alternatives-to-amazon.330129/
quoted to illustrate what is wrong with Amazon.
Would be happy to pay increased taxes to keep BBC free with similar standards to mow.
Are you suggesting that people who have no choice but to buy from the cheapest supplier have no ethics?I repeat if you want to give money to the likes of Amazon and you have no ethics, that's fine.