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

anything that abolishes the license fee gets my vote

only thing I watch is Top Gear which I could happily live without

Dont use BBC websites and don't listen to the radio

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.

Stick it on the Council Tax.

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.

what I never understood with the BBC was how could they find a person guilty in a court of breaking a law when they were never given an option.

If a person doesnt have a license to watch tv then they get 'convicted' even though the BBC neither hold rights to the invention of tv nor provide an opt out.

Ive always wished there to be an option where I can take the news and drop all the houswife cr4p like eastenders and sticklydance.

Why the fook I have to subsidise that tosh in this day and age is beyond me.



Id not miss it rob

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

The licence is to permit a residence to receive radio (and later television) broadcasts transmitted within a certain frequency band. It used to paid at the Post Office, back in the days when people were generally more honest. But the honest people gradually passed away and have been replaced by a bunch of 'blag it' merchants who want everything for nothing. So, many of them ceased to pay for signal reception, even though they still watched the television. The Government then decided to give the collection job for these unpaid licences to the BBC, as they were the main beneficiaries, but they didn't give them the same powers as other Revenue and Customs officers. So, all the BBC can do is to ask you to pay for your licence and, if you don't, then eventually the big boys will step in.

But whichever way it goes...you will STILL have to pay for a reception licence. It may be less than it is now, but I wouldn't bank on it!

*used to be paid*

How is it right though to take an individual to court while not providing an alternative?
we a banana republic?
Id agree it wouldnt be a problem if they had an opt out option.

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.

You dont need to pay for  a reception licence .wise up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxkicyM0qu4

"funding a bunch of paedophiles" 

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

my point is in a court of law why dont they challenge the concept of punishing while providing no alternative (to existing tv owners)
they provide a broadcast, not anything to do with the tv, if they neither provide an opt out nor encrypt it then that isnt the tv owners fault

"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.

so they are saying they own broadcasting then?

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

Think they are trying to say both but they say you dont need one if you only watch BBC iplayer or 4OD ,so you can have a tv legally without a licence .

They take in 4b a year .

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.

Haven't read all thread :

Everyone who pays license fee should get shares in BBC proportional to number of years paid

Shares could not be sold except back to BBC

Dividend would be issued yearly

BBC would then be owned by License payers

Share value would increase as BBC Total Capital increased

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.

In response to the analogy of the driving license. (even though comparing the process for a license for driving is actually based on testing a person's competence, and therefore its a safety thing)
I believe you don't require a license to drive a vehicle on private land, how receiving broadcasts from a private paid subscription to a tv in your house can be classed in the same bracket is beyond me.

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.

We are lucky to have the Director General posting on chit chat

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.

Yes, naydam we get all that.

What the OP was asking whether the requirement to pay a licence to "receive broadcasts" (the proceeds of which are mostly funnelled to the BBC) should be removed. If the BBC was funded from subscription, there would be no need for a licence or fee, which could be abolished.

The answer to his question is, of course, yes.

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.

No.

He's perhaps right with the financial model, but we owe it to the arse-end of society to make sure they have access to quality tv. Given the choice, they will just opt for Jeremy Kyle and remain wretched.

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.

You would within minutes.

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. 

*buy*  (see you've me mad, 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 .

Well, quite.

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.

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

*European nation

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. 

Oops! Sorry, Clunge. Didn't realise there was another page.

I'm sure this lot just pretend to like adverts, really.

"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?

Naydam
Tell me, is it true that Brussels, where the European court is have abolished the tv license mechanism or is that not true?

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?

To be honest Dustybin I'm struggling to think of how on earth the Tv Licence and offence of failing to have one in the UK is anything to do with European courts.

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.

If the European courts can rule against Microsoft packaging products together (coupling Internet explorer with windows from recollection) then how different is it to rule against the state forcing any individual purchasing a tv to watch broadcasts to have to pay to take BBC whether they want it or not?

Because microsoft isnt a publicly owned company.

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

whether they are wrong to not want it or not isn't the issue
choice is
whether one believes the BBC do or don't do a good job in providing unbiased productions what isn't debatable is the fact that its extremely inefficient and the tax payer gets a rum deal due to a behemoth corporation that wastes money and stifles competition.

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.

im not against public or nationalisation, the pint here isn't that the bbd shouldn't exist its that it shouldn't act like the feckin mafia forcing ppl to take it even if they don't watch it, they should make it avoidable that is the point, and become more efficient in salaries to egos or subsidise entertainment shows.

bbc

It's a licence set up and legislated for by the government and the government uses that revenue to fund a  publicaly owned corporation that the government also contracts to collect the licensing fees. 

It's nothing to do with the EU courts it would be a bit like trying to take NHS dentists to the EU court of justice because their public funding breaches anti-competition laws.

Nobody has to watch it.

but if the collecting of said license were to be anti competitive to private companies then who can't the European court legislate on that?

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

*why can't

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

Im not totally sure where the power struggle lays between europe and parliament.
I was of the impression that we no longer have sovereignty.
If the european courts can tell a reluctant government that whilst they are part of the EU they will be liable to be told exactly which constituents can (or not) vote in elections (prisoners) then to me that sounds pretty conclusive that europe have the whip hand now over deciding what can and can't be done here
Irrespective whether it might be constitutional or not.

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.

should be a subscription only service.

I would happily pay £5 a month for it.

And how much would you happily pay for your licence?

hold on Emden ...dats a bit steep IS IT NOT ? ,corny xfact and poridge repeats only worth 2.50 tops imo

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

Shrewd dude
So are you saying no  public company can be tested on a point of law in a court while everything else including government policy etc can and is?
As a matter of interest do you know what the actual decree is that says this?
Seems rather bizarre, things don't cease to become unjust just because they occur within the public sector.
So what happens to human rights for eg?
They abandoned?

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. if the public are fed up it will go but i think right now the people are in favour

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.

So are you saying no  public company can be tested on a point of law in a court while everything else including government policy etc can and is?

No I'm saying the state funding a public organisation through a licence fee is nothing to do with European courts.

As a matter of interest do you know what the actual decree is that says this? No, legislatures don't usually legislate for the things which aren't against the law.

Seems rather bizarre, things don't cease to become unjust just because they occur within the public sector.
So what happens to human rights for eg?
They abandoned?

Dustybin you're the one who is banging on about the TV licence being against European law so why don't you point to the part where the BBC licence Fee goes against European law or breaches the ECHR.

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.

Dusty it's no different than saying the Post Office was anti competitive because it was subsidised by the state through taxes at the detriment to DHL etc. 

Why haven't SKY, Virgin or BT made an application to the ECJ?

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.

For the record I was asking based on the logic of the situation, not that I'm in any way a supporter of privatisation.
I'm a believer of Keynesianism and believe in state run organisations, but they could be run better.

And worse.

Because the organisations provide public services.

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.

I think they do rather well considering the large number of viewers who seek to avoid paying their licence fee. You know who you are!



And so do WE!