Tv licence has "10 years left"

[unbeliever 10]

As I've said three times, one problem with making it a subscription service is that it wouldn't then be available to everybody, in particular not to some of the people who'd potentially benefit most from it (I appreciate that even if you lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink).

 

That doesn't make any sense.

At the moment if you haven't got an extra £150/year you can't own a TV. Or perhaps you have better things to do with the £150/year.

I'm proposing a system where if you haven't got the £150 you can own a TV, but you can't watch the BBC.

Nobody is to be denied any public service broadcasting at all that they aren't currently denied under the present funding model.

 

The elderly and very poor can be offered a free BBC decryption key, so they needn't miss out.

 

You seem to be suggesting that anybody who owns a TV should have the BBC imposed on them in order to make them in some way "better". I'm not the least bit comfortable with that. These are free people who should be allowed to make their own choices.

I'll choose to subscribe to and watch the BBC, others won't. I guess you'll be a subscriber too. Why do you want other people to pay for our TV?

 

---------- Post added 24-06-2015 at 10:24 ----------

 

Do you have any idea how much Sky spends every year enforcing its business model against broadcast 'pirates' (fake cards, hacked boxes, Android media boxes and more, all designed to deliver Sky without a penny)?

 

I've actually worked on some of the cases and seen the N260s. It's cheaper than what the BBC spends on TV license enforcement (which it does on behalf of the Government and HMRC, lest we forget, not for its own profit).

 

 

Have you just told me that enforcing a subscription model would be cheaper than enforcing the TV license?

If so, then why are we still discussing this?

Edited June 24, 2015 by unbeliever

[unbeliever 10]

I'm not suggesting that niche/educational programmes (or relatively unbiased news coverage) should be "imposed" on anybody. I'm just suggesting that they should be available to everybody, including people who can't or wouldn't pay a subscription for them, and their children. People would still be free not to watch those programmes.

 

I suppose your basic point is that society as a whole doesn't benefit from having universal access to these things, whereas my basic point is that it does.

 

That's not what I said.

I'll repeat it for clarity:

 

At the moment if you haven't got an extra £150/year you can't own a TV. Or perhaps you have better things to do with the £150/year.

I'm proposing a system where if you haven't got the £150 you can own a TV, but you can't watch the BBC.

Nobody is to be denied any public service broadcasting at all that they aren't currently denied under the present funding model.

The elderly and very poor can be offered a free BBC decryption key, so they needn't miss out.

 

P.S. You'll have a job to convince me that there is less "bias" on BBC news than there is on other TV news. Do you have a problem for example with channel 4 news?

Edited June 24, 2015 by unbeliever

[unbeliever 10]

Under your proposal, access would be denied to anybody who couldn't or wouldn't pay the £150/year, and their children, unless they were elderly or very poor. Therefore not universal.

 

Those who couldn't pay the £150/year can't afford the TV license and so are already not included in your "universal" service.

So you are in fact complaining about people who would choose not to pay the BBC subscription, are you not?

[unbeliever 10]

No, I'm saying that if it were made into a subscription service, it would no longer be available to everybody.

 

Like I say, I think that universal access benefits society as a whole, whereas you don't. Fair enough.

 

As others have pointed out, many poor and elderly people already do get a reduced or zero licence fee, but yes, I agree that it's wrong that there are people who are currently denied access just because they can't afford it. That's one reason why I think it'd be better paid for out of general taxation.

 

You concede in your third paragraph that it is not available to everybody in the sense in which you use "available". Your third paragraph does not sit well with your first.

 

Funding from general taxation would be an improvement as general taxation is more progressive than the license fee. This would also have the virtue of making it available to everybody who can afford the cost of the TV set itself, which approximates to everybody.

 

In principle, if I agreed to support such a funding model, would you agree to support a scaling down of BBC operations such that all commercially viable activities are left to commercial providers?

 

P.S. I agree that public service broadcasting has value in a society. I never said or implied otherwise.

The BBC issue is far more complicated than this simple principle because of the unjust funding model and the fact that its activities go way beyond the scope of simple public service broadcasting.

Edited June 24, 2015 by unbeliever

[mimic 10]

No more unfair than asking everybody who owns a car (TV) to pay road tax (license fee) if the car (TV) is being used on public roads (to receive broadcasts OTA, whether FTA or subscription-based).

It ceases to be an NHS-like system, and becomes BUPA-only.

 

I know road tax is another con...I mean tax but being as you like your.."lets look at it like this"

 

Tax fuel... more road use = more fuel = more tax paid by the highest users.

 

BBC TV... subscription = you use it = you pay. Don't expect everyone else to fund your enjoyment.

[L00b 441]

Have you just told me that enforcing a subscription model would be cheaper than enforcing the TV license?

If so, then why are we still discussing this?

No, the exact contrary.

 

Should I be surprised to see you misrepresenting my post?

I know road tax is another con...

Anything else a con? VAT? Income tax? Council tax? Capital gains tax?

 

Tell you what, let's go with your model. See how long you last having to fund your kids' education from kindergarten onwards, your and your kid's health, your and your family's safety, <very long list of everything funded out of direct and indirect taxation that you clearly take for granted>.

 

Oh, you want roads and motorways to go with all that? See you at the tolls.

Don't expect everyone else to fund your enjoyment.

I don't to spend much time watching the idiot box at all these days. Bit of news, the odd documentary and that's it. Probably between 4 and 5 hours per week aggregate tops, and that's counting any movie time as well.

 

I prefer 'semi-professional' work (pro bono time for presentations and lectures, and charities) and non-TV hobbies.

 

I don't mind the TV license at all, it'd still be cheap at twice the price for what the UK as a nation gets out of it. I don't mind the fact that millions of qualifying UK citizens don't pay it and I'm effectively funding it for them, either. I suppose that's a sense of civic duty or moral responsibility, whatever you want to call it. But I understand the licensing system (in terms of taxation mechanism) and the purpose and objective value of the BBC. I daresay most who decry it, don't - because they haven't ever experienced what is done and how it's done elsewhere for any length of time, and/or just look at the content in selfish/reactionary terms and completely dismiss the public character and purpose of the institution.

Edited June 24, 2015 by L00b

[unbeliever 10]

No, the exact contrary.

 

Should I be surprised to see you misrepresenting my post?

 

Let's not get excited. This is your post (truncated, my bold):

 

Do you have any idea how much Sky spends every year enforcing its business model against broadcast 'pirates' (fake cards, hacked boxes, Android media boxes and more, all designed to deliver Sky without a penny)?

 

I've actually worked on some of the cases and seen the N260s. It's cheaper than what the BBC spends on TV license enforcement .......

 

I think if you re-read it yourself, you'll find that your accusation that I've misrepresented you is false.

 

P.S. Perhaps you'd like to consider what I said in reply to CaptainSwing:

 

Funding from general taxation would be an improvement as general taxation is more progressive than the license fee. This would also have the virtue of making it available to everybody who can afford the cost of the TV set itself, which approximates to everybody.

In principle, if I agreed to support such a funding model, would you agree to support a scaling down of BBC operations such that all commercially viable activities are left to commercial providers?

Edited June 24, 2015 by unbeliever

[L00b 441]

Let's not get excited. This is your post (truncated, my bold):

 

I think if you re-read it yourself, you'll find that your accusation that I've misrepresented you is false.

Not excited at all, and I eat my humble pie when it's deserved: self-owned here, and I put my hand up with my sincere apologies to you unbeliever

 

I mistyped the original post (it is more expensive to enforce the subscription model than the license fee). Didn't realise I typed the complete contrary, when it was clear in my mind (whereby the second post alleging misrepresentation), until you rightly pulled me up.

 

Earlier posts edited for consistency and now a useful (recent) link on the topic of enforcement costs. Quoting from the link:

150.000 annual cases

15% drop rate

£17m a year total Government cost

99.5% convicted cop a fine, £169.37 average fine

39 jailed a year average, term indexed on license amount unpaid, average jail cost per day for imprisoned TV license non-paying offenders estimated at £100 a day

 

By comparison, Sky will be spending significantly more than £113 per defendant. Try high 4 to low 5 figures, much (much) more if the defendants don't cave in and settle straight away and the proceedings go to any length.

Edited June 24, 2015 by L00b

[mimic 10]

No, the exact contrary.

 

Should I be surprised to see you misrepresenting my post?

Anything else a con? VAT? Income tax? Council tax? Capital gains tax?

 

Tell you what, let's go with your model. See how long you last having to fund your kids' education from kindergarten onwards, your and your kid's health, your and your family's safety, <very long list of everything funded out of direct and indirect taxation that you clearly take for granted>.

 

Oh, you want roads and motorways to go with all that? See you at the tolls.

 

Yes most of them now your asking.

 

And as you want to make it personal and ask about my kids. TAX, TAX oh and lets not forget, more TAX. Don't spout off until your damn sure you know and understand the background of who you're asking questions. I've paid my way every single week of my working life, can you say the same?

 

Keep it in perspective!

Edited June 24, 2015 by mimic
?

[unbeliever 10]

Not excited at all, and I eat my humble pie when it's deserved: self-owned here, and I put my hand up with my sincere apologies to you unbeliever

 

I mistyped the original post (it is more expensive to enforce the subscription model than the license fee). Didn't realise I typed the complete contrary, when it was clear in my mind (whereby the second post alleging misrepresentation), until you rightly pulled me up.

 

Much appreciated. An honest mistake which of which we are all capable.

What do you think to my P.S. from my previous post.

 

Edit -

Do your calculations of the cost of enforcing the license fee include Court and CPS costs; and the cost of imprisoning repeat offenders?

Edited June 24, 2015 by unbeliever

[unbeliever 10]

Fair points.

 

I agree totally that the licence fee is effectively a regressive tax, which is a bad thing.

 

Also that the existence of people who can't afford the fee (as opposed to those who don't realize they could get it cheaper or for free) means that the current service isn't quite universal, also a bad thing. Though I do wonder how many people that is, the official figure is that 96% of households have a licence - a lot more than have the internet, I should think (haven't looked up that figure). And some of the remaining 4% will be people who could afford it but can do without any TV, BBC or otherwise. To that extent the current system does have a small element of "subscription" about it. Yet another reason for moving it to general taxation.

 

And yes, there probably is some scope for scaling down operations. Private Eye is always going on about how management-heavy the BBC is. There's a discussion to be had about which, if any, programmes to cut, but those would be questions of detail rather than principle.

 

Sounds reasonable.

Surely you would agree that we could start by cutting all output where there is very similar output on commercial TV. There have been examples in this thread.

Also I would submit that if the BBC should not spend tax/fee payers money buying US or other foreign drama etc if there is a free to air commercial channel offering to show it.

If I'm to support a general tax funding model for the BBC, I think it reasonable that all BBC output should meet the "public service" standard. Education, art and culture; and to some extent news and current affairs. I can't think what else can't be done commercially.

It comes down to the principle that the BBC should confine itself to that which is a public good and is not commercially viable. There's no call for it to in any way compete with commercial TV. I estimate that we could start with a staged 50% reduction in the BBC budget and see where that leaves us.

[L00b 441]

Much appreciated. An honest mistake which of which we are all capable.

What do you think to my P.S. from my previous post.

Generally in agreement, but not about the transfer of commercial operations to commercial operators. What I would prefer to see, is a cure to the same illness permeating the NHS and other heavyweight Gvt departments, i.e. a scaling down of middle and junior management, more clearly-defined responsibilities, red lines and personal accountability. Basically, more 'real world enterprise life and models' injected into a 'statist' environment shielded from competition (the Real World), somewhat resting on its practices and laurels and in need of a good shake-up. Like the EU

 

I think you'd find the cost benefit of this approach substantially equal to your own 'scaling down' proposal, whilst keeping the commercial lifeline which the BBC needs to continue producing world class content.

Edit -

Do your calculations of the cost of enforcing the license fee include Court and CPS costs; and the cost of imprisoning repeat offenders?

According to the review interim report I linked, yes.