Should the BBC axe license fees in favour of subscription?

so you would be basically pricing the poor out of watching tv,subscription add up to a load more than the licence fee

Ianucci not doing his chances of a second series much good imo.

Tony Hayers won't be smelling his cheese imo.

Cut out the red tape and bureaucracy and just add a fee to the electricity bill.

Agree with him.  Obvious really, sould shut up all the whingers who say they never watch it, bet they would almost all pay up in the end.

I pay for my subscription tv
BBC are frightened to do the same as it will run the true test over their inflated wage packets and carp telly

*used to be paid*

You are Automatically 'Opted Out'. You only 'opt in' when you install reception equipment on the premises.
If you don't have the receiver, you don't need a licence to receive. It's quite simple.

It's like your driving licence. If you don't want to drive...you don't need a licence.

I can purchase a car and not drive it though
Why cant I purchase a tv and not watch their bilge?

Not like they either invented the tv nor provide and option for tv owners.
Its sloppy and ever present, the easy option is to hit the individual, they could encrypt it.....but they dont, theyd rather fritter cash away in bureaucracy instead over paying bigots or subsidising carp

"If you don’t watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV, on any device, you don’t need a TV Licence."

taken from  TV licencing site and it also states

The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.

Its broadcasts that you arnt allowed to watch because they wont encrypt theirs.
I cant see why a court of law would appease that myself

what I never understood with the BBC was how could they find a person guilty in a court of breaking a law

Going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the BBC don't have their own courts at which they preside as judges in.

shrewd dude
that is true, but they don't need to, since if you get 'caught' watching tv without a license you are 'guilty' what happens after that is that a judge will determine 'how guilty' based on how many assets you have (the fine you receive).
What I was suggesting was different, I was saying Im surprised somebody hasn't tested the validity in a european court to be able to say that while the action of subscribing to paid for tv isn't unlawful in itself the receiving of broadcasts by said providers is unlawful if you haven't paid the BBC whether you receive that or not, and you do because they can't be arsed to encrypt it, so they arnt providing the option.
To me I can't see how a court would uphold that, but thats just an opinion.

This is becoming boring. Please read. The television licence is a legal requirement to enable a residence etc. to receive broadcasts. This is not just broadcasts from the BBC or any other said provider. It is ANY broadcast. Even if you only use subscription channels you STILL need a licence to receive them.

I believe I stated that a licence was required to DRIVE a car, not to own one. The only qualification required, as far as I am aware, is that one must be aged seventeen or above. Yes, I have no doubt that you can think of cases where this may not be so. Bully for you!

You are perfectly entitled to have ten television sets in your house as long as you don't use them to receive televised broadcasts. There is even a loophole that enables you watch 'catch-up' type programmes. This is bound to occur from time to time as new technology develops. The 'loophole' may or may not be addressed shortly.

The reception rules apply to all signals whether encrypted or not. ALL.

Im saying I see n reason that a european court wouldn't rule against the state for not providing an alternative for the user who seeks only to receive subscription tv.
Its anti competitive in a world that lets private companies pretty much act without regulation.

But the fee couldn't be abolished. That, of course, should read 'wouldn't'. Why should it be abolished. If you want to receive broadcasts, then you pay for that privilege. Simple as that. Whatever next? People just broadcasting whatever they want? It simply will not do! Measures of control are necessary. Hence the laws.

Only for the news and documentaries, the rest goes on over inflated egos serving their own ends
All the rest is 'entertainment' and irrelevant whether there are adverts or anterior motive, you either like it and watch it or you don't.
Most of the time you wouldn't know what channel you are even watching.

I'm not suggesting that the BBC should not/could not be funded in a different manner. But these guys are going on about encrypted signals etc. That is a very recent occurrence. It wasn't possible a few years ago.
It would probably mean everybody having to by some sort of set-top box. Once again, bad news for the least well off.

BUT THAT WOULD STILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE A VALID RECEPTION LICENCE!!

I'm goin' now. 

first time i saw a sky dish was in a council estate  clunge ,rows upon rows ,every house had one .Was not till   years later i seen them elsewhere .

Governments can make the laws they like that doesn't mean they can't be challenged.
I rather suspect the reason the tv licence hasn't been tested in a European court on grounds of constricting commercial freedom is because no company would want to be seen as the company that took down the BBC institution.

A Tory old fart taking backhanders though, that's another question.