No. You were replying (#844) to the issue that a small minority have of TVL checking up to see whether in fact a licence is needed. Let's not goal post move. Calico_pie was right. Personally, I'd have no issue with TVL coming round to mine to check that I was properly covered. Why? I've got nothing to hide.
I was replying to YOUR idea of increased checks around people that choose not to have a license. If you are going to patronise me at least read my post properly.
You have never answered my question about how regularly homes that do not require a license should be visited? if you decided you didnt need it, how often would you be willing to be visited? once a year? once a month? once a week?
The other question that you have ignored on multiple occasions:
How would your system cope with a tv owner with neither a landline or broadband connection?
I too have a license, I have stated this on the thread many times, judging by your love of the bbc, you have a license too I expect, why would anyone need to visit you or me? they can easily check our addresses, no need to come round or check anything. Those that don't need a license should not be treated like criminals when there is no reason to force people to have a license if they adhere to applicable laws and to question this excessively is harrasment and bullying.
I have no problem with the current system, I have a problem with your attitude to those that have chosen to adhere to laws that do not require them to have a license
In that case I don't know that the difference is, as you seemed to be describing the current system where TVL might visit people who they understand to be unlicenced.
The current system works much better than Ash's idea which would see enforcement increased, forcing of people to own a tv license irrespective of whether they own a tv or not, and what a surprise the minute I disagree with anything said by someone that is pro BBC I get leaped upon and my posts twisted, even though I have no objection to the bbc or the license, I just dare to think there are things they could do better.
A few differences between the current system and Ash's system
Enforcement- Ash's idea would have more, targeting non broadband/landline customers rather than those that don't own a tv.
Collection method- Ash''s idea puts collection in the hands of 50+ isp's rather than 1 organisation
Costing- Ash's idea makes no account of the increased costs of an infrastructure of 50+ organisations taking payments, passing these on to a central organisation, not to mention increased costs from the increased enforcement.
Lets not disagree with any of this though, Ash is more pro BBC than I am, so therefore part of the clique, whereas I think BBC radio alienates anyone under middle age that happens to be older than r1's remit, Lets also not forget there is no pro BBC clique on here either
I was replying to YOUR idea of increased checks around people that choose not to have a license. If you are going to patronise me at least read my post properly.
You have never answered my question about how regularly homes that do not require a license should be visited? if you decided you didnt need it, how often would you be willing to be visited? once a year? once a month? once a week?
The other question that you have ignored on multiple occasions:
How would your system cope with a tv owner with neither a landline or broadband connection?
I too have a license, I have stated this on the thread many times, judging by your love of the bbc, you have a license too I expect, why would anyone need to visit you or me? they can easily check our addresses, no need to come round or check anything. Those that don't need a license should not be treated like criminals when there is no reason to force people to have a license if they adhere to applicable laws and to question this excessively is harrasment and bullying.
I have no problem with the current system, I have a problem with your attitude to those that have chosen to adhere to laws that do not require them to have a license
I stand by what I say. Your response, #844 was in direct response to the current licence fee and my suggestions of 'fairly regular monitoring' to make sure people aren't 'swinging the lead'. Trust me...if people think they can get something for nothing, they will.
Of course I have a tv licence. I pay by direct debit every month.
I have know idea how often or otherwise visits should be carried out. Personally, I don't think there is a finite number. Personally, I wouldn't mind how many times I was visited because I would know that I had nothing to hide.
I see you have done a goal-post move...the incorporation of 'neither a landline'... in response to my earlier post. Listen, the Broadcasting Levy is the simplest (but not perfect) replacement of the licence fee. It gets rid of the current 'cat and mouse' games played out by 'avoiders' and 'evaders' whilst saving time and money too. The percentage of households with neither a landline or broadband will be very small indeed.
The current system works much better than Ash's idea which would see enforcement increased, forcing of people to own a tv license irrespective of whether they own a tv or not, and what a surprise the minute I disagree with anything said by someone that is pro BBC I get leaped upon and my posts twisted, even though I have no objection to the bbc or the license, I just dare to think there are things they could do better.
A few differences between the current system and Ash's system
Enforcement- Ash's idea would have more, targeting non broadband/landline customers rather than those that don't own a tv.
Collection method- Ash''s idea puts collection in the hands of 50+ isp's rather than 1 organisation
Costing- Ash's idea makes no account of the increased costs of an infrastructure of 50+ organisations taking payments, passing these on to a central organisation, not to mention increased costs from the increased enforcement.
Lets not disagree with any of this though, Ash is more pro BBC than I am, so therefore part of the clique, whereas I think BBC radio alienates anyone under middle age that happens to be older than r1's remit, Lets also not forget there is no pro BBC clique on here either
The only people who are anti the Broadcasting Levy are those currently enjoying LiVE TV without paying for it.
Forget 'the owning of a tv or not'. Technology has advanced but the need for quality public service programming supplied by the BBC has not changed. The Broadcasting Levy takes into account the various means of 'access'...and rightly so.
What percentage of the population don't have broadband and/or landline?
Underlined... what's the issue? Sounds fine to me.
I stand by what I say. Your response, #844 was in direct response to the current licence fee and my suggestions of 'fairly regular monitoring' to make sure people aren't 'swinging the lead'. Trust me...if people think they can get something for nothing, they will.
Of course I have a tv licence. I pay by direct debit every month.
I have know idea how often or otherwise visits should be carried out. Personally, I don't think there is a finite number. Personally, I wouldn't mind how many times I was visited because I would know that I had nothing to hide.
I see you have done a goal-post move...the incorporation of 'neither a landline'... in response to my earlier post. Listen, the Broadcasting Levy is the simplest (but not perfect) replacement of the licence fee. It gets rid of the current 'cat and mouse' games played out by 'avoiders' and 'evaders' whilst saving time and money too. The percentage of households with neither a landline or broadband will be very small indeed.
96% of households hold a TVL, so you are chasing the remaining 4%, that will be made up of concessions, those who opt out and don't pay, say 2% and 2%. So there will have to be at least 98% - 100% coverage for landline/broadband to make this levy work. I'm willing to bet there are less than 96% of households that have either landline/broadband.
Have you even considered the demise of the landline over recent years, there are about 20% of homes now mobile only. How are you going to enforce your levy on those who dont have a landline and use mobile data, pre paid dongles, raise mobile prices to cover your levy. There are too many variables for your levy to work. You've not thought this through have you.
The only people who are anti the Broadcasting Levy are those currently enjoying LiVE TV without paying for it.
Forget 'the owning of a tv or not'. Technology has advanced but the need for quality public service programming supplied by the BBC has not changed. The Broadcasting Levy takes into account the various means of 'access'...and rightly so.
What percentage of the population don't have broadband and/or landline?
Underlined... what's the issue? Sounds fine to me.
Another pro bbc member leaping to conclusions
I have owned a license since 2009 and oppose a change to broadcasting levy
Lets just say more than 4% have neither broadband or landline, I used to work for an isp so any figures I had then were out of date but 100% saturation was viewed by the industry as impossible and unrealistic
I stand by what I say. Your response, #844 was in direct response to the current licence fee and my suggestions of 'fairly regular monitoring' to make sure people aren't 'swinging the lead'. Trust me...if people think they can get something for nothing, they will.
Of course I have a tv licence. I pay by direct debit every month.
I have know idea how often or otherwise visits should be carried out. Personally, I don't think there is a finite number. Personally, I wouldn't mind how many times I was visited because I would know that I had nothing to hide.
I see you have done a goal-post move...the incorporation of 'neither a landline'... in response to my earlier post. Listen, the Broadcasting Levy is the simplest (but not perfect) replacement of the licence fee. It gets rid of the current 'cat and mouse' games played out by 'avoiders' and 'evaders' whilst saving time and money too. The percentage of households with neither a landline or broadband will be very small indeed.
You have goal post moved every time I find a reason your idea wouldn't work, I said not everyone has broadband and then you mentioned landlines.
The only people who are anti the Broadcasting Levy are those currently enjoying LiVE TV without paying for it.
Forget 'the owning of a tv or not'. Technology has advanced but the need for quality public service programming supplied by the BBC has not changed. The Broadcasting Levy takes into account the various means of 'access'...and rightly so.
What percentage of the population don't have broadband and/or landline?
Underlined... what's the issue? Sounds fine to me.
Of course this is only true on planet Ash.
You're proposing to adopt a levy system and you don't have any reliable data to back it up. Precisely why folk are picking holes in it, because they can see the flaws, not because they are watching live TV illegally.
So what? Its not "endless repeats". And its often a good chance to see something you might have missed. Sue Perkins series on the Yellow River was repeated recently which was good as we had only seen the first episode.
If a programme is repeated a few times within a couple of months then it is endlessly repeated.
Most people these days can access BBC Iplayer, you can even get one of Sky little now Tv boxes for a tenner to access it, ok it is a bit slow, but I have seen it working.
No - you only explained how it would have been possible. You certainly didn't explain why it would have been practical to spend all that money on something that almost everyone freely uses anyway, just so that a tiny minority of stubborn grumpy people don't suffer some mild inconvenience.
But it would not have a cost a lot of money if the BBC had allowed card slots to start with. The only money eventually would be the cards and software for encryption, the hardware would be in the boxes/TV sets.
What the BBC have done is make it harder for subscription, so they was just saving their own bacon to be honest, but it could be the undoing of them, because if the government did decide now that the BBc was to go subscription, they would be stuffed.
I can not see it happening, no more than I can see a levy happening. We will carry on down the same road as we are now, with a out dated licence system, but hopefully frozen.
I don't see how someone having a different opinion to you is remotely like people being brainwashed into a religion.
We just have to agree to disagree here then.
No - they don't. They know for an absolute fact that lots of people are lying - they just have no way of knowing who is and who isn't.
They think we are all lying, simple as that. Oh we don't believe you so we are going to send the heavy mob around.
Oh for goodness sake - just grow a pair! We all have to do things in life we might prefer not to or think we shouldn't have to. Its hardly that big a deal in the scheme of things, for a bit of peace and quiet.
It is the way they act as if they are so important and the lies they tell to people trying to get them to cough up for a licence they do not need.
I understand that some people is watching TV without a licence, but I thought that they had all this equipment to catch them, oh yes that is another lie.
So what has your experience been, where you have co-operated with tvl from one year to the next? Not the anecdotal experiences of others you might have read about on the internet, but your own actual experience. Convince me that TVL have acted badly and harassed you above and beyond what could be considered reasonable.
Not me, they have not really bothered with me, but as I said before, maybe they do not like my camera. I have also said before I know someone who had sky and had no licence and no one bothered with him at all, I have know idea how he got away with it, I still think it is because he was out in the sticks. Sadly he is no longer with us, but for ten years he went without a TVL and watched Sky.,
My brother a few years back had a few problems with them, he did not even have a TV in the flat and yet he still bombarded with letters and visits even after telling them he did not need a licence. I have read a lot about the TVL and how they go about things.
Letters that look like court documents, just to scare people.
If you are relying on a completely atypical scenario of leaving your home to watch tv on your phone, then no - I don't think its a very good comparison at all.
Ok, again, we agree to disagree about this.
Seeing as most people still get a lot from the licence fee and the BBC, I don't see how it is particularly in need of reform. Jut tell it as it is - its an annoyance to you, so you would like it changed to rid you of that annoyance. But don't pretend its something it really isn't to justify that.
It is a system that is out of date, If they are having a TV licence then let it be a TV licence and use the money to prop up other media, not just the BBC. It is not such a annoyance to me as you think, I can and did opt out and still watched via on demand stuff on other channels I wanted to watch. Not much, mainly motor racing on ITV player.
I still think it is wrong that people have to pay for the BBC just to be able to watch live commercial channels.
I also think many more people will give up their TV licence. In fact I was chatting to a friend last night who only just got herself a new freesat box and she is thinking of going licence free, agreeing with me that buying a freesat box was a waste of money if she going to scrap the licence. Her daughter watches everything on demand and they have netflix. My friend do not really watch the TV much and if she does it is on in the background as she works at home.
She said it is not about the money, she can more than afford the money, but it is that it get little use.
I think there will be more people like her in the future.
To what constructive and practical end? Surely that would just be an incredibly inefficient use of the money. And why should commercial channels get public money anyway?
Private companies that supply the BBC with content already get public money, so what is the difference?
I am certainly pleased that money is taken of the licence fee to support broadband in places that will not get it, not sure about it propping up BT mind you, I think different companies should have been used.
It was also good that the licence was used to help people change to digital TV, after all not all of us was that bothered about digital tV and was forced to go for it.
You are missing the point - which was that publicly funded services are not all of equal importance when it comes to how many lives they save. Just because a publicly funded service does not involve saving lives does not mean it should not be publicly funded.
It is of no importance, it do not do anything that makes a difference to peoples lives, we can live without the BBC. Ok, some of us can, others seems to have their head glued onto TV.
The purpose of the commercial sector is to make money...as much as they can. If they can make more money from screening more eps of BGT in place of regional news, for example, they are going to do it.
yeah, that is what commercial companies do, but i am sure with a bit of money chucked their way they would be happy to make some non commercial content.
...and that's thanks to Thatcher and subsequent governments who believed that 'outsourcing' public services to the private sector was the way to go. Blame the UK governments for this, not our public services.
You say this and yet you are benefiting from it. Do you think your broadband would be as cheap if we still had one provider? I was paying £40 a month in 2000 just for ADSL 512Kb/s, my line rental on top of that as well and no free calls. I am not paying just over £30 a month for 35Mb/s and that include my landline and free calls for evening and weekends, not that I have used the landline yet,
Talk Talk which you are using, while they have upped their prices over the last couple of years, used to be one of the cheapest providers and still are with ADSL, do you think you would be paying as little as you are if the post office was still in charge to telecomms?
I do not think the system is perfect, BT still have far too much control and I do think the company should be broken up and all three parts become separate companies, but if it was not for BT we would still be stuck on dial up.
The Levy is absolutely the right way to go. It maintains the principles, purpose and ethos of the BBC, valued by so many, in the modern age.
You are typing cobblers. BBC have no principles and I doubt most people care as long as they get their Eastenders and voice, plus also their Cori and Emmadale on the other channels.
I disagree. If people think they can get something for nothing, they will. People who 'claim' they don't require a tv licence should be monitored on a fairly regular basis and visits should be unannounced.
People wanting to get something for nothing? Wow, that is the way things are and in my experience, it is those that have money that seems to wants something for nothing, that is why there are so many tax fiddles.
So how often should these people be monitored?
Why should people have to put up with being disturbed? I get annoyed with sales people who knocks at my door, if I had a TVL coming to my door every month or every other month I would be well pissed off, certainly if i was not doing anything wrong, like i was not when I did not have a TVL.
Technology may have advanced, but the need for quality public service programming supplied by the BBC has not changed.
The need for quality public service?, just a shame we have not got it then, because the BBc is not really what I call quality, then again I do not call British TV quality to be honest.
I absolutely disagree. 1. No cuts. 2. All licence fee money should go to the BBC. It is then clear to all that the BBC is about public service programming, funded via the licence fee. 3. As I have already pointed out to you, the commercial sector aren't interested in non-commercial programming for obvious reasons. 4. Public money should NOT go direct to the private sector.
We will have to see what happens, we still have a while before the renewal, but I would bet that your Levy will not happen, the price of the licence will stay frozen and more will be taken off.
I am going to give it a month or two for my licence, just to bed in a bit and then going to cancel it again, it was a mistake to even buy one again.
SKY provide a free box for their subscribers, could the BBC, not do the same for theirs? - it could be covered in the first year's subscription. They could be turned out like sausages in this technical age.
According to many on here - if the BBC's licence was replaced by a subscription pay-wall, BBC fans would subscribe in their millions OK - your bluff has been called, PROVE that the general public really want & would pay willingly for the BBC alone.
Then, those not so well off (or who hardly ever watch TV) could enjoy, without Capita salesmen, banging on their door - a bit of free Commercial TV.
The Magistrates courts would have far fewer cases, no "Criminals" created by the "Unique (pathetic) way the BBC is funded" to miss-quote it's own adverts of a few years ago.
All these forums, would have nothing to cuss about of course, of course other things would be found
SKY provide a free box for their subscribers, could the BBC, not do the same for theirs? - it could be covered in the first year's subscription. They could be turned out like sausages in this technical age.
Not really free, I am sure that if sky did not have to subsidise their boxes they could knock the price of subscription down. Also if the box goes belly up after 12 months you are normally faced with paying for a replacement.
I know there are ways of getting out of paying for a new box, pay £10 a month extra to sky for insurance for a start. The other way is to cancel the service, I know people who have done that and Sky normally changes their tune and provide another box.
According to many on here - if the BBC's licence was replaced by a subscription pay-wall, BBC fans would subscribe in their millions OK - your bluff has been called, PROVE that the general public really want & would pay willingly for the BBC alone.
I agree.
Then, those not so well off (or who hardly ever watch TV) could enjoy, without Capita salesmen, banging on their door - a bit of free Commercial TV.
The Magistrates courts would have far fewer cases, no "Criminals" created by the "Unique (pathetic) way the BBC is funded" to miss-quote it's own adverts of a few years ago.
All these forums, would have nothing to cuss about of course, of course other things would be found
We will never be sure what would happen if we got rid of the licence and put the BBC on subscription, but i would be willing to give it a go.
At the end of the day if the BBC can no make money with subscription, then it would close.;
SKY provide a free box for their subscribers, could the BBC, not do the same for theirs? - it could be covered in the first year's subscription. They could be turned out like sausages in this technical age.
According to many on here - if the BBC's licence was replaced by a subscription pay-wall, BBC fans would subscribe in their millions OK - your bluff has been called, PROVE that the general public really want & would pay willingly for the BBC alone.
Then, those not so well off (or who hardly ever watch TV) could enjoy, without Capita salesmen, banging on their door - a bit of free Commercial TV.
The Magistrates courts would have far fewer cases, no "Criminals" created by the "Unique (pathetic) way the BBC is funded" to miss-quote it's own adverts of a few years ago.
All these forums, would have nothing to cuss about of course, of course other things would be found
Almost every other country in the world has a national broadcaster funded by taxpayers money. Can you name a single PSB that has gone the subscription route? In fact both Ireland and Germany have just replaced their TV licence by going the very opposite direction and requiring every household pay for a licence whether they have a TV or not. (That does away with Capita knocking on your door, letters etc)
If subscription is such a good system for a public service then clearly you support the NHS going subscription as well. After all, if I have BUPA why should I be forced to pay for the NHS and subsidise your healthcare, right?
SKY provide a free box for their subscribers, could the BBC, not do the same for theirs? - it could be covered in the first year's subscription. They could be turned out like sausages in this technical age.
According to many on here - if the BBC's licence was replaced by a subscription pay-wall, BBC fans would subscribe in their millions OK - your bluff has been called, PROVE that the general public really want & would pay willingly for the BBC alone.
Then, those not so well off (or who hardly ever watch TV) could enjoy, without Capita salesmen, banging on their door - a bit of free Commercial TV.
The Magistrates courts would have far fewer cases, no "Criminals" created by the "Unique (pathetic) way the BBC is funded" to miss-quote it's own adverts of a few years ago.
All these forums, would have nothing to cuss about of course, of course other things would be found
The sky box isn't "free", it's paid for by your subscription.
The sky box isn't "free", it's paid for by your subscription.
And loses much of it's functionality if you unsubscribe, with things like any PVR functions getting locked out (including playback of material you've already recorded)..
And loses much of it's functionality if you unsubscribe, with things like any PVR functions getting locked out (including playback of material you've already recorded)..
Very true. Even if you cancel Sky Movies for example but keep the other package Sky will stop you watching a movie you downloaded when you still were a subscriber. And if you cancel your entire subscription Sky will turn off the recording/playback function totally, leaving you with a basic STB. So much for "the box is free"
Sky also charge you extra to watch TV in another room.
And with the cost of their subscriptions (while still having adverts as well) no wonder they make so much money.
Very true. Even if you cancel Sky Movies for example but keep the other package Sky will stop you watching a movie you downloaded when you still were a subscriber. And if you cancel your entire subscription Sky will turn off the recording/playback function totally, leaving you with a basic STB. So much for "the box is free"
Sky also charge you extra to watch TV in another room.
And with the cost of their subscriptions (while still having adverts as well) no wonder they make so much money.
Sky are not allowed to leave the plus features enabled when subscription is cancelled, they have to disable them.
A few ways to watch Sky in another room without further charges. Split an output (RF/HDMI/Scart) is one, another if you want to watch a different programme/ondemand is via Sky Go.
Other service providers are available and also charge for multiroom and switch recording features off when subscription has been cancelled.
And loses much of it's functionality if you unsubscribe, with things like any PVR functions getting locked out (including playback of material you've already recorded)..
Just for balance. It's main function Watching Satellite television remains.
So at the end of your Sky offer If you decide to cancel Sky you get to keep the SKY Box and can still watch over 200 channels including free to air HD.
Totally for free for as long as you like. You will also get access to any New fta channels that frequently start, many that aren't available elsewhere. So its well worth keeping and using the box even without a Sky Subscription.
...We will have to see what happens, we still have a while before the renewal, but I would bet that your Levy will not happen, the price of the licence will stay frozen and more will be taken off...
You appear to relish at the prospect.
Please tell me:
1. How this will benefit the UK's creative and broadcasting sectors?
2. The UK economy?
3. How this will benefit the UK more broadly?
Private is NEVER the answer and neither are cuts. Private ALWAYS means 'poorer' and 'more expensive'. History is riddled with flirtations with privatisation which have resulted in POORER / MORE EXPENSIVE outcomes for people. It is high time this country learn't from the past. Don't flirt with privatisation.
SKY provide a free box for their subscribers, could the BBC, not do the same for theirs? - it could be covered in the first year's subscription. They could be turned out like sausages in this technical age.
According to many on here - if the BBC's licence was replaced by a subscription pay-wall, BBC fans would subscribe in their millions OK - your bluff has been called, PROVE that the general public really want & would pay willingly for the BBC alone.
Then, those not so well off (or who hardly ever watch TV) could enjoy, without Capita salesmen, banging on their door - a bit of free Commercial TV.
The Magistrates courts would have far fewer cases, no "Criminals" created by the "Unique (pathetic) way the BBC is funded" to miss-quote it's own adverts of a few years ago.
All these forums, would have nothing to cuss about of course, of course other things would be found
No subscription mate. It has been pointed out on numourous occasions why. It conflicts with the purposes and principles of public service.
Commercial networks are not free. We all pay for them via the products and services we buy.
...It is of no importance, it do not do anything that makes a difference to peoples lives, we can live without the BBC. Ok, some of us can, others seems to have their head glued onto TV.
You really have know idea what the BBC does do you to make such a comment. The BBC is the gold standard...streets and miles ahead of the commercial sector. In order for it to continue to do what it does, it must be well funded by all...all-be-it, with all current loop holes closed.
...We will never be sure what would happen if we got rid of the licence and put the BBC on subscription, but i would be willing to give it a go.
At the end of the day if the BBC can no make money with subscription, then it would close.;
I think we can be very sure...much, much higher charges for all in return for a much, much poorer service...plus the dreadful ads. Less choice too.
A suggestion for you...read up on why the BBC was set up in the first place and why it is funded they way it is. Before you say it, it's funding is not out of date nor is the huge and valuable contribution it makes to this country.
Sky are not allowed to leave the plus features enabled when subscription is cancelled, they have to disable them.
A few ways to watch Sky in another room without further charges. Split an output (RF/HDMI/Scart) is one, another if you want to watch a different programme/ondemand is via Sky Go.
Other service providers are available and also charge for multiroom and switch recording features off when subscription has been cancelled.
They are imported as non pvr's so exempt from import duties, therefore the recording features can only operate on a subscription basis (separate feature), so I guess it's HMRC they would have to answer to if they supplied it as a stand alone pvr stb.
Comments
I was replying to YOUR idea of increased checks around people that choose not to have a license. If you are going to patronise me at least read my post properly.
You have never answered my question about how regularly homes that do not require a license should be visited? if you decided you didnt need it, how often would you be willing to be visited? once a year? once a month? once a week?
The other question that you have ignored on multiple occasions:
How would your system cope with a tv owner with neither a landline or broadband connection?
I too have a license, I have stated this on the thread many times, judging by your love of the bbc, you have a license too I expect, why would anyone need to visit you or me? they can easily check our addresses, no need to come round or check anything. Those that don't need a license should not be treated like criminals when there is no reason to force people to have a license if they adhere to applicable laws and to question this excessively is harrasment and bullying.
I have no problem with the current system, I have a problem with your attitude to those that have chosen to adhere to laws that do not require them to have a license
The current system works much better than Ash's idea which would see enforcement increased, forcing of people to own a tv license irrespective of whether they own a tv or not, and what a surprise the minute I disagree with anything said by someone that is pro BBC I get leaped upon and my posts twisted, even though I have no objection to the bbc or the license, I just dare to think there are things they could do better.
A few differences between the current system and Ash's system
Enforcement- Ash's idea would have more, targeting non broadband/landline customers rather than those that don't own a tv.
Collection method- Ash''s idea puts collection in the hands of 50+ isp's rather than 1 organisation
Costing- Ash's idea makes no account of the increased costs of an infrastructure of 50+ organisations taking payments, passing these on to a central organisation, not to mention increased costs from the increased enforcement.
Lets not disagree with any of this though, Ash is more pro BBC than I am, so therefore part of the clique, whereas I think BBC radio alienates anyone under middle age that happens to be older than r1's remit, Lets also not forget there is no pro BBC clique on here either
I stand by what I say. Your response, #844 was in direct response to the current licence fee and my suggestions of 'fairly regular monitoring' to make sure people aren't 'swinging the lead'. Trust me...if people think they can get something for nothing, they will.
Of course I have a tv licence. I pay by direct debit every month.
I have know idea how often or otherwise visits should be carried out. Personally, I don't think there is a finite number. Personally, I wouldn't mind how many times I was visited because I would know that I had nothing to hide.
I see you have done a goal-post move...the incorporation of 'neither a landline'... in response to my earlier post. Listen, the Broadcasting Levy is the simplest (but not perfect) replacement of the licence fee. It gets rid of the current 'cat and mouse' games played out by 'avoiders' and 'evaders' whilst saving time and money too. The percentage of households with neither a landline or broadband will be very small indeed.
The only people who are anti the Broadcasting Levy are those currently enjoying LiVE TV without paying for it.
Forget 'the owning of a tv or not'. Technology has advanced but the need for quality public service programming supplied by the BBC has not changed. The Broadcasting Levy takes into account the various means of 'access'...and rightly so.
What percentage of the population don't have broadband and/or landline?
Underlined... what's the issue? Sounds fine to me.
Have you even considered the demise of the landline over recent years, there are about 20% of homes now mobile only. How are you going to enforce your levy on those who dont have a landline and use mobile data, pre paid dongles, raise mobile prices to cover your levy. There are too many variables for your levy to work. You've not thought this through have you.
Another pro bbc member leaping to conclusions
I have owned a license since 2009 and oppose a change to broadcasting levy
Lets just say more than 4% have neither broadband or landline, I used to work for an isp so any figures I had then were out of date but 100% saturation was viewed by the industry as impossible and unrealistic
You have goal post moved every time I find a reason your idea wouldn't work, I said not everyone has broadband and then you mentioned landlines.
Of course this is only true on planet Ash.
You're proposing to adopt a levy system and you don't have any reliable data to back it up. Precisely why folk are picking holes in it, because they can see the flaws, not because they are watching live TV illegally.
If a programme is repeated a few times within a couple of months then it is endlessly repeated.
Most people these days can access BBC Iplayer, you can even get one of Sky little now Tv boxes for a tenner to access it, ok it is a bit slow, but I have seen it working.
But it would not have a cost a lot of money if the BBC had allowed card slots to start with. The only money eventually would be the cards and software for encryption, the hardware would be in the boxes/TV sets.
What the BBC have done is make it harder for subscription, so they was just saving their own bacon to be honest, but it could be the undoing of them, because if the government did decide now that the BBc was to go subscription, they would be stuffed.
I can not see it happening, no more than I can see a levy happening. We will carry on down the same road as we are now, with a out dated licence system, but hopefully frozen.
We just have to agree to disagree here then.
They think we are all lying, simple as that. Oh we don't believe you so we are going to send the heavy mob around.
It is the way they act as if they are so important and the lies they tell to people trying to get them to cough up for a licence they do not need.
I understand that some people is watching TV without a licence, but I thought that they had all this equipment to catch them, oh yes that is another lie.
Not me, they have not really bothered with me, but as I said before, maybe they do not like my camera. I have also said before I know someone who had sky and had no licence and no one bothered with him at all, I have know idea how he got away with it, I still think it is because he was out in the sticks. Sadly he is no longer with us, but for ten years he went without a TVL and watched Sky.,
My brother a few years back had a few problems with them, he did not even have a TV in the flat and yet he still bombarded with letters and visits even after telling them he did not need a licence. I have read a lot about the TVL and how they go about things.
Letters that look like court documents, just to scare people.
Ok, again, we agree to disagree about this.
It is a system that is out of date, If they are having a TV licence then let it be a TV licence and use the money to prop up other media, not just the BBC. It is not such a annoyance to me as you think, I can and did opt out and still watched via on demand stuff on other channels I wanted to watch. Not much, mainly motor racing on ITV player.
I still think it is wrong that people have to pay for the BBC just to be able to watch live commercial channels.
I also think many more people will give up their TV licence. In fact I was chatting to a friend last night who only just got herself a new freesat box and she is thinking of going licence free, agreeing with me that buying a freesat box was a waste of money if she going to scrap the licence. Her daughter watches everything on demand and they have netflix. My friend do not really watch the TV much and if she does it is on in the background as she works at home.
She said it is not about the money, she can more than afford the money, but it is that it get little use.
I think there will be more people like her in the future.
Private companies that supply the BBC with content already get public money, so what is the difference?
I am certainly pleased that money is taken of the licence fee to support broadband in places that will not get it, not sure about it propping up BT mind you, I think different companies should have been used.
It was also good that the licence was used to help people change to digital TV, after all not all of us was that bothered about digital tV and was forced to go for it.
It is of no importance, it do not do anything that makes a difference to peoples lives, we can live without the BBC. Ok, some of us can, others seems to have their head glued onto TV.
yeah, that is what commercial companies do, but i am sure with a bit of money chucked their way they would be happy to make some non commercial content.
You say this and yet you are benefiting from it. Do you think your broadband would be as cheap if we still had one provider? I was paying £40 a month in 2000 just for ADSL 512Kb/s, my line rental on top of that as well and no free calls. I am not paying just over £30 a month for 35Mb/s and that include my landline and free calls for evening and weekends, not that I have used the landline yet,
Talk Talk which you are using, while they have upped their prices over the last couple of years, used to be one of the cheapest providers and still are with ADSL, do you think you would be paying as little as you are if the post office was still in charge to telecomms?
I do not think the system is perfect, BT still have far too much control and I do think the company should be broken up and all three parts become separate companies, but if it was not for BT we would still be stuck on dial up.
People wanting to get something for nothing? Wow, that is the way things are and in my experience, it is those that have money that seems to wants something for nothing, that is why there are so many tax fiddles.
So how often should these people be monitored?
Why should people have to put up with being disturbed? I get annoyed with sales people who knocks at my door, if I had a TVL coming to my door every month or every other month I would be well pissed off, certainly if i was not doing anything wrong, like i was not when I did not have a TVL.
The need for quality public service?, just a shame we have not got it then, because the BBc is not really what I call quality, then again I do not call British TV quality to be honest.
We will have to see what happens, we still have a while before the renewal, but I would bet that your Levy will not happen, the price of the licence will stay frozen and more will be taken off.
I am going to give it a month or two for my licence, just to bed in a bit and then going to cancel it again, it was a mistake to even buy one again.
SKY provide a free box for their subscribers, could the BBC, not do the same for theirs? - it could be covered in the first year's subscription. They could be turned out like sausages in this technical age.
According to many on here - if the BBC's licence was replaced by a subscription pay-wall, BBC fans would subscribe in their millions
Then, those not so well off (or who hardly ever watch TV) could enjoy, without Capita salesmen, banging on their door - a bit of free Commercial TV.
The Magistrates courts would have far fewer cases, no "Criminals" created by the "Unique (pathetic) way the BBC is funded" to miss-quote it's own adverts of a few years ago.
All these forums, would have nothing to cuss about of course, of course other things would be found
Not really free, I am sure that if sky did not have to subsidise their boxes they could knock the price of subscription down. Also if the box goes belly up after 12 months you are normally faced with paying for a replacement.
I know there are ways of getting out of paying for a new box, pay £10 a month extra to sky for insurance for a start. The other way is to cancel the service, I know people who have done that and Sky normally changes their tune and provide another box.
I agree.
We will never be sure what would happen if we got rid of the licence and put the BBC on subscription, but i would be willing to give it a go.
At the end of the day if the BBC can no make money with subscription, then it would close.;
Almost every other country in the world has a national broadcaster funded by taxpayers money. Can you name a single PSB that has gone the subscription route? In fact both Ireland and Germany have just replaced their TV licence by going the very opposite direction and requiring every household pay for a licence whether they have a TV or not. (That does away with Capita knocking on your door, letters etc)
If subscription is such a good system for a public service then clearly you support the NHS going subscription as well. After all, if I have BUPA why should I be forced to pay for the NHS and subsidise your healthcare, right?
And loses much of it's functionality if you unsubscribe, with things like any PVR functions getting locked out (including playback of material you've already recorded)..
Very true. Even if you cancel Sky Movies for example but keep the other package Sky will stop you watching a movie you downloaded when you still were a subscriber. And if you cancel your entire subscription Sky will turn off the recording/playback function totally, leaving you with a basic STB. So much for "the box is free"
Sky also charge you extra to watch TV in another room.
And with the cost of their subscriptions (while still having adverts as well) no wonder they make so much money.
Sky are not allowed to leave the plus features enabled when subscription is cancelled, they have to disable them.
A few ways to watch Sky in another room without further charges. Split an output (RF/HDMI/Scart) is one, another if you want to watch a different programme/ondemand is via Sky Go.
Other service providers are available and also charge for multiroom and switch recording features off when subscription has been cancelled.
So at the end of your Sky offer If you decide to cancel Sky you get to keep the SKY Box and can still watch over 200 channels including free to air HD.
Totally for free for as long as you like. You will also get access to any New fta channels that frequently start, many that aren't available elsewhere. So its well worth keeping and using the box even without a Sky Subscription.
:cool:
You appear to relish at the prospect.
Please tell me:
1. How this will benefit the UK's creative and broadcasting sectors?
2. The UK economy?
3. How this will benefit the UK more broadly?
Private is NEVER the answer and neither are cuts. Private ALWAYS means 'poorer' and 'more expensive'. History is riddled with flirtations with privatisation which have resulted in POORER / MORE EXPENSIVE outcomes for people. It is high time this country learn't from the past. Don't flirt with privatisation.
No subscription mate. It has been pointed out on numourous occasions why. It conflicts with the purposes and principles of public service.
Commercial networks are not free. We all pay for them via the products and services we buy.
You really have know idea what the BBC does do you to make such a comment. The BBC is the gold standard...streets and miles ahead of the commercial sector. In order for it to continue to do what it does, it must be well funded by all...all-be-it, with all current loop holes closed.
I think we can be very sure...much, much higher charges for all in return for a much, much poorer service...plus the dreadful ads. Less choice too.
A suggestion for you...read up on why the BBC was set up in the first place and why it is funded they way it is. Before you say it, it's funding is not out of date nor is the huge and valuable contribution it makes to this country.
By who?
They are imported as non pvr's so exempt from import duties, therefore the recording features can only operate on a subscription basis (separate feature), so I guess it's HMRC they would have to answer to if they supplied it as a stand alone pvr stb.