TV.Licensing.

[silver fox]

And being means tested will still let them have a free t.v. licence.


I don't get this reach 65/75 and living should be free ideal. At least these poor pensioners are getting a state pension, Something that isn't guaranteed for future generations.
My parents are not well off, but after heated debates over Brexit agreed they are one of the most fortunate generations ever, and they are in their 80's. Oh and by the way they do have Sky. I guess some are less tech phobic than others.

My dislike of SKY doesn't stem from lack of or fear of technology, rather no desire to voluntarily fund a monopolistic organisation who are attempting to take a stranglehold on broadcasting, as far as paying extra to watch more ads, no way.

Sadly many major sporting events have now fallen into the hands of this monopoly, but what else does SKY offer? basically nothing worth watching and don't forget it's all those people paying out, who have allowed this to happen.

[Albion102]

I would have BBC TV funded by commercials, but BBC News and Radio publicly funded by tax payers - which would include wealthier pensioners.

[silver fox]

I would have BBC TV funded by commercials, but BBC News and Radio publicly funded by tax payers - which would include wealthier pensioners.

NEVER, the BBC must retain it's independence as a broadcaster and not be held to account in any way by advertisers, news programmes filtered so as not upset some big advertiser, documentaries focused on a product or company with no criticism of failings, programmes sponsored by a company for promotion of that company.

Apart from which my TV would be out of use if commercials were all I had to watch.

[Ceam]

My dislike of SKY doesn't stem from lack of or fear of technology, rather no desire to voluntarily fund a monopolistic organisation who are attempting to take a stranglehold on broadcasting, as far as paying extra to watch more ads, no way.

Sadly many major sporting events have now fallen into the hands of this monopoly, but what else does SKY offer? basically nothing worth watching and don't forget it's all those people paying out, who have allowed this to happen.

I don't watch many ads, rarely watch anything live, and fast forward through all ads.

Personally watch Sports, Movies, Atlantic, sky one.
Can record multiple channels at once, pause, rewind etc.
Broadband is great and unlimited.

Only issue I have is you have to kick off with them over price every 12 months or so. Or they do take advantage of those that don't negotiate.

[bensherman]

When judging the licence fee remember

The BBC's output is very much more than a couple of TV channels. It provides what is probably the world's highest standard radio, with 8 national options. A very good website, the proms, opportunities for actors and musicians...

If you want to fund it through advertising, consider the consequences. Apart from the intrusion and the loss of 3-4 minutes every hour, consider how advertisers would react. The BBC's audiences are huge and particularly large for more affluent groups. Advertisers would stampede for access to those audiences. It would create massive harm for independent TV and radio.

And the BBC does centralise its national news journalism, even if the delivery is by different people.

[Alikado]

I would have BBC TV funded by commercials, but BBC News and Radio publicly funded by tax payers - which would include wealthier pensioners.

There are also other things that are funded through the licence fee such as some C4 C5 minority Tv / Radio ands some local radio broadcasting.

[LeftyFailsAgain]

The TV License needs abolishing completely, for all. It is a nonsense to have to fund the BBC, simply to watch other live channels, when the BBC is no longer a force for good. If they think their programming is so indispensible then surely their fans would queue to buy a voluntary subscription? Clearly they don't have faith in their own output and therefore need the imposition of a regressive telly tax.

[Alikado]

The TV License needs abolishing completely, for all. It is a nonsense to have to fund the BBC, simply to watch other live channels, when the BBC is no longer a force for good. If they think their programming is so indispensible then surely their fans would queue to buy a voluntary subscription? Clearly they don't have faith in their own output and therefore need the imposition of a regressive telly tax.

It's not just the BBC1/2 output that is funded by the licence fee, if it was I think the BBC would gladly drop all the other stuff. It is the state broadcaster and is controlled by the Government who is trying to wriggle out of funding it.

[said]

When judging the licence fee remember

The BBC's output is very much more than a couple of TV channels. It provides what is probably the world's highest standard radio, with 8 national options. A very good website, the proms, opportunities for actors and musicians...

If you want to fund it through advertising, consider the consequences. Apart from the intrusion and the loss of 3-4 minutes every hour, consider how advertisers would react. The BBC's audiences are huge and particularly large for more affluent groups. Advertisers would stampede for access to those audiences. It would create massive harm for independent TV and radio.

And the BBC does centralise its national news journalism, even if the delivery is by different people.

"centralise its national news..." Yes, it does really well as the national hub of propaganda!

[silver fox]

"centralise its national news..." Yes, it does really well as the national hub of propaganda!

What propaganda is that then?

The BBC reports what is said and done, if they report something which you would prefer suppressed, suppression is propaganda, reporting what is said or done is not propaganda, if you can point our where the BBC have falsely reported any incident, or manufactured a story, let me know.

I find that ardent right wingers regard the BBC as a hot bed of Socialism, whereas those of the far left believe it to be an establishment Capitalist enclave.

Similarly with Brexit both sides claim bias against their views, for me if both the extremes of politicals think they are treated unfairly, the BBC must be getting it right.

[silver fox]

The TV License needs abolishing completely, for all. It is a nonsense to have to fund the BBC, simply to watch other live channels, when the BBC is no longer a force for good. If they think their programming is so indispensible then surely their fans would queue to buy a voluntary subscription? Clearly they don't have faith in their own output and therefore need the imposition of a regressive telly tax.

The TV licence is a licence to operate equipment capable of receiving live signals from wherever, applies to ALL live broadcasts not just the BBC, the licence fee does not go directly to the BBC, it goes to government into a consolidated fund, which is then allocated as decided by the government department.

Governments are prevented from rolling this money into general taxation to prevent governments from taking control of the National broadcaster, currently the BBC receive 90% of the money generated, 3% goes to collection and administration, the remainder is used to improve signal in poor reception areas, not just for TV but also for Wi-Fi, broadband even to extending the cable network.

You will also find that every country which has a national broadcaster operates something similar as the only way to ensure an independent broadcaster.

[tonee smith]

Should it be free for the older generation?

Free ? It should be scrapped entirely imo, Mind you i think the BBC is no longer a public service i would abolish it

[silver fox]

Free ? It should be scrapped entirely imo, Mind you i think the BBC is no longer a public service i would abolish it

I take it you would then rely on the commercial channels for unbiased information, good luck with that