I can't see a case that could be made, pretty much every European has state sponsored television.

I think the reason why it's never been challenged in some European court of law is because they've got the same bloody laws over there!

That was just for emphasis. 

"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."

I can't fathom out whether this is serious or not. Why the hell do I need the permission of the state (for a chunky fee of course) to watch the TV? It's not a 'privilege' any more than reading a book, or a newspaper or surfing the net. And why are 'measures of control' necessary? What sort of authoritarian lunatic are you?

I think the reason why it's never been challenged in some European court of law is because they've got the same bloody laws over there!

naydam getting a bit cockey, I hope he's correct....or is it just clunge's foot up his arse working him like a puppet?

Because its anti competitive from a business stand point.
How can it be an offence for the individual to want to pay for what they watch? it isnt consistent with a persons rights when the state cant be arsed to provide an alternative in the form of making their product opt out-able.
How can the action of paying to watch subscription only tv be an offence in any real world?

By the way, Brussels abolished the tv license as they didnt think the format worked, for the likes of naydam to scoff that simply because there is state imposed licensing within europe that means courts cant review the facts and make determinations against them is frankly wrong.

Because microsoft isnt a publicly owned company.

The BBC ensures that quality tv is available even for those too stupid to want it.

But makes programmes the rest of the world admire. The suggestion was not to abandon the BBC but to make it subscription lead, and my response related to that. By all means make it more efficient.

bbc

Nobody has to watch it.

you are correct clung
but you HAVE to pay for it
pretty much my point of unfairness

No ! you may have to pay a subscription, keep quiet! somebody
always rocks the boat and makes things worse.

If the BBC was a private company being subsidised by the state then yes that would likely be a matter for the ECJ under anti-competition laws. However it's not against EU law for a public organisation to be subsidised by the state which is what is happening by the state funding the BBC by the licence fee and it's not against someones human rights to make it a criminal offence for failing to have the appropriate licence  required by law so it's nothing to d with the ECHR either.

And how much would you happily pay for your licence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA&feature=kp

What I'm trying to find out is what is the definition that defines the following difference?
Why is the action considered anti competitive for a private company to provide a free product along with a purchased one (since a competing version of that free product is offered by other private companies who are harmed as a result)

Yet forcing a customer to purchase channels that make programmes that are in direct competition with other private companies isn't anti competitive because its a public company?

Surely anti competitive is anti competitive?

the bbc is unique. no other broadcaster operates in the same way

you can say that again - we're the only mugs that would put up with it.

Hang on, the question is that however you get to an end result if that end result is unlawful then it can be challenged.
Being anti competitive is unlawful and within the court' remit to determine and legislate is that correct?

Irrespective of whether a license mechanism is used or whether the state simply sells a product, a law is created that means a person taking a transmitted broadcast has to pay the state for the license which then subsidises the public organisation.

So are we saying that public organisations do not fall within the remit of the court IF a judgement is deemed to be required?

I can't see how the fact it is a license alters the fact it's anti competitive given the following.

A person on limited personal disposable income looks to purchase a broadcast.
The forced requirement imposed by the law in the form of needing to purchase a license to receive the broadcasts from anybody that then subsidises the creation of the very programmes that compete against companies who charge for their products.
These subsidised programmes are free.

The customer now has no money to purchase the competitions programming.

Whichever way you look at it the state is forcibly charging any individual in the market to purchase broadcasts at the detriment if the other companies.
To me that is anti competitive.

If the money from the license didn't pay for the production of the free programmes or if the product was optional to take on subscription then it wouldn't be the case, but neither of these are true.

I understand this might be drawing out the question and is frustrating but it's something that I've never fully understood and to me seems an inconsistency that has potential to be challenged.
Unless as you suggested earlier it's as simple as saying because the action is committed by state then you can't question it.

That's what I'm asking essentially, I wanted to know what stops a test case, is it that its a state organisation, and if so what is the actual decree that says it can't?
Yes the example is right essentially if a precedent of anti competition has been set then I don't see how sate funded organisations arnt anti competitive.

And worse.

They may provide public services, but the are managed in a manner like crony capitalism.
They even refer to the over inflated salaries (of individuals that cost more than the sum of the parts) as 'talent', sounds awfully similar to the banking sector.
We are supposedly all shareholders yet only a few get to shape it.
IMV the BBC would do well sticking to making news and cultural affairs programming, charge for that in a similar manner (at lower cost), get rid of the ego (as they arnt needed for those programmes) and make 'light entertainment' subscription based.
If they insist on making tired copies of talent contests or dancing shows that appeal to groups within the whole population then they can pay for them, what sticks im my craw is that they arnt being tested but being protected, if they want to make good programming to compete then they cant be subsidised.