TV Licence

[101]

31 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

I think the BBC would benefit from going to a streaming model like Netflix. They've got enough stuff to probably get enough subscribers to make it worthwhile, especially if they keep costs as they are for the current license but give folk the option of subscribing for a month or however long they wish. 

It's probably going to happen eventually anyway, so they might as well get a head start on it. Do you think they'd make more money from such a model, or less, than they currently do?

I'm sure a streaming service run by the BBC was rejected by a parliamentary committee about 10 years ago as it wouldn't make financial sense, obviously the BBC could have been a front runner if that had gone ahead.

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

27 minutes ago, red23 said:

Some people struggle to sit back and realise the total cost of things cause "it's only X amount per month". 

Like people who get an iphone on £60 a month contracts over 2 years (£1,440)

or people who lease cars for 3 years at £350 a month (£12,600)

And a tv license over 10 years which is a staggering £1600......

If HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows would just admit he was too poor/tight then I’d respect him a lot more. The ‘haha you’re an idiot because you pay for a service you use’ patter is a bit distasteful. 

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

16 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

Why should he pay for it?

I do. If I felt strongly about it, I wouldn’t.

For the same reason you should pay for other things you use and that have a clearly defined  price.

I've said multiple times now there's many valid reasons not to pay the TV license. I just don't think "I don't have to" is a very good reason 

[Scary Bear]

Just now, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

For the same reason you should pay for other things you use and that have a clearly defined  price.

I've said multiple times now there's many valid reasons not to pay the TV license. I just don't think "I don't have to" is a very good reason 

What is that reason?

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

Just now, Scary Bear said:

What is that reason?

Gonna have to be more specific there chum 

[Scary Bear]

1 minute ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said:

Gonna have to be more specific there chum 

Chum is dog food. For that reason, I’m out. 

[Scary Bear]

God bless those who take BBC services without paying.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, 101 said:

I'm sure a streaming service run by the BBC was rejected by a parliamentary committee about 10 years ago as it wouldn't make financial sense, obviously the BBC could have been a front runner if that had gone ahead.

They keep putting blocks on them going for a more commercial model because Murdoch and his pals don't like it. A basic service with radio and 2 live tv channels for a smaller licence, with a top up subscriber service for the on demand stuff and maybe niche channels like 3 and 4, with adverts between programmes perhaps. They were told to slim down their web stuff too as it was too successful, the football section used to be much better, with each game showing the stats of their last 5 (or 10?) games and stuff like that. If they charged for foreign access instead of blocking it they'd make a bomb too, where copyright allowed.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Doing the government out of £10 a month.

 A modern day Che Guevara.

[red23]

So people who DO pay the license, i presume you don't watch football streams then?..............no?

[Clockwork]

They're all worth every penny IMO:

Those eye watering salaries alone, should be reason enough for every single paying household in the country to cancel their direct debits. It’s scandalous that a non-commercial and monopolistic organisation can squander such lavish wages, particularly on ‘presenter’ positions.
Surprised that given the power of social media these days, that no-one has attempted to harness some sort of movement refusing to pay up. Would it take so much effort to get the momentum going?

[Scotty Tunbridge]

And a tv license over 10 years which is a staggering £1600...... 

 

 What sort of percentage of households are going to be people living themselves for 10 years plus? 25-30%? Probably less tbh.

 

So in a 2 person household you’d have only paid £800 for the tv licence over 10 years, then despite the fact they wouldn’t be paying for it, if that household were to then have 2 kids who use it the service cost is only £400 per person over said 10 years.

 

Not to sound like a Tory but it’s really not that expensive even taking it over 10 years.

 

Pay it or don’t pay idgaf, just don’t be one of these arseholes that when people are talking about Eastenders or MOTD etc. who buts in going ‘Oh I don’t pay a tv licence!!’ Good for you that wasn’t the conversation though and you’ve already told us that 2839 times before.

[Empty It]

Some hangover OP will have this morning after last night.

[Sergeant Wilson]

5 minutes ago, Empty It said:

Some hangover OP will have this morning after last night.

He'll  be lying on the couch watching a repeat of Saturday Kitchen thinking  up yours @Genuine Hibs Fan. 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson

[KingRocketman II]

8 hours ago, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said:

If HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows would just admit he was too poor/tight then I’d respect him a lot more. The ‘haha you’re an idiot because you pay for a service you use’ patter is a bit distasteful. 

it's probably more distasteful to comment on someone's financial circumstances.

in any case he nor anyone in the UK asks for BBC to appear free to air on their TV. Other channels that you have to pay for block the content if you don't pay/subscribe. BBC don't and therefore they nor anyone can really complain if people freely wish to view the programmes that the BBC are happy to provide to everyone. if the BBC or people have an issue with this then it is the model of licence fee/subscription that needs addressed and not someone's decision not to pay. 

Whether those who pay it are idiots are not - well some probably are and some probably aren't like all walks of society. However getting angry about people not paying it, that is more difficult to categorise. 

[101]

8 hours ago, Clockwork said:

Those eye watering salaries alone, should be reason enough for every single paying household in the country to cancel their direct debits. It’s scandalous that a non-commercial and monopolistic organisation can squander such lavish wages, particularly on ‘presenter’ positions.
Surprised that given the power of social media these days, that no-one has attempted to harness some sort of movement refusing to pay up. Would it take so much effort to get the momentum going?

If you're on twitter you will see it's trending because the Anti BLM people are opposed to the BBC doing anything in support, if I'm honest that wont help any "cause" of the BBC reining in their spending and no other group will want to be associated with a bunch of racist scum bags, that said Scotland already has more households not paying for a license per capita than any other country in the uk

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

20 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

He'll  be lying on the couch watching a repeat of Saturday Kitchen thinking  up yours @Genuine Hibs Fan. 

On my dime!

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, KingRocketman II said:

it's probably more distasteful to comment on someone's financial circumstances.

in any case he nor anyone in the UK asks for BBC to appear free to air on their TV. Other channels that you have to pay for block the content if you don't pay/subscribe. BBC don't and therefore they nor anyone can really complain if people freely wish to view the programmes that the BBC are happy to provide to everyone. if the BBC or people have an issue with this then it is the model of licence fee/subscription that needs addressed and not someone's decision not to pay. 

Whether those who pay it are idiots are not - well some probably are and some probably aren't like all walks of society. However getting angry about people not paying it, that is more difficult to categorise. 

Fair enough but the OP was getting angry at people who do pay for the reason that you can ignore the request to pay. He made no moral or political case for not paying, and there are dozens of reasons why you could choose not to pay.

[Netan Sansara]

11 hours ago, IrishBhoy said:

We would laugh at North Koreans if we got told anyone with a TV was made to pay a mandatory tax to fund a state run broadcaster, but it happens here and hardly anyone bats an eyelid. 

Except the U.K. is hardly unique in that regard. In Germany there’s a fee for radio and TV also, except with no option to not pay (as far as I understood at least). I think it exists in other EU countries also, France, Italy etc.

For what it’s worth, I pay my TV license. For me the £10 or whatever it is a month represents real value, and I think having a state broadcaster is a net good. Take A View From The Terrace as an example, it’s extremely unlikely that would be made on a commercial station, as the number of viewers wouldn’t justify it (could of course be talking out my arse, but I can’t see it’s viewer count being too high overall).

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

9 hours ago, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said:

If HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows would just admit he was too poor/tight then I’d respect him a lot more. The ‘haha you’re an idiot because you pay for a service you use’ patter is a bit distasteful. 

Damn right I'm tight I'll freely admit that. Why pay for something that's beamed directly into your home, for free, that you can watch with no chance of a comeback?