In article ,=20
says...

=20
What about those people who don't have a TV at all? They have no way to=
=20
avoid paying the several hundred pounds per year that an average househol=
d=20
will spend on TV advertising.

Maybe not, but as I said, they advertise in othewr ways and do you=20
really think the prices wpuld gfo down anyway?

=20
The total TV advertising airtime spend last year would have been in the=
=20
region of 150% the =A32.6bn maximum possible domestic TV licence revenue.=
=20
Then there's the cost of ads on commercial radio - fairly negligable, but=
=20
then the TV licence funds BBC radio, too.

=20
Let's be very conservative and assume the production costs of the ads are=
=20
only 50% of the airtime costs.=20
=20
So that's =A3300 per household goes on TV advertising.

Well, people buy more things than they need anyway, you only have too=20
look at what people was buying at Christmas.
I bet most of the food they did buy ended up in the bin.
I buy food that I am going to eat, I do not have the money to waste.


=20
How many times do we go though this, yes we do pay for advertising,
but T.V is not the only advertising medium, so9 even if there was no
adverts on T.v the prices would not come down for these products.
=20
TV is by *far* the most expensive advertising medium, and there is a=20
reasonable chunk of all household expenditure goes on the products. You=
=20
can't easily avoid it by only buying non-TV-advertised brands, as most=20
normal household products come from the same few corporates.

I know that, but you could cut down, by buying cheaper goods, or going=20
to cheaper places to buy.
You can always save moeny on your shopping, you can not do that with a=20
T.V licence.

Even with Sky, you can go down to a smalleer package. But I still think=20
Sky should do what Ondigital did and allow you to choose the amount and=20
what channels you want.


Most adverts these days are to do with finance.
=20
Try watching a non-brain-rot commercial channel. Most ads are for *real*=
=20
products. It's only pikey TV that advertises cheap loans for muppets with=
=20
no credit rating.

I did not think we had any non-brain rot commercial channels?=20

=20
No comment on every household in the country paying Tony Ball of Sky 50p=
=20
last year? I'd be very happy with only 5p from every household.
=20

er?

In article ,
says...


Oh I forgot, I can not do that, because we are made to pay for the BBC,
even if we do not watch it.

No, you are forced to pay a tax for the operation of your TV receiver.
How the money raised through that tax is spent is totally irrelevant to
your argument.


If it was spent on tagging cows would you have any less objection to the
license fee?


I would, because we should not have to pay for a license in this day and
age, it should be subscription.
You see, I do not want T.V for free, but I want a farier way of paying
for it. But then we now got to pay more for the licence to pay for the
O.A.Ps that are having it for free, some of them got more money than I
have, and some still got people living there that are working.
The system is wrong all wrong. It should be means tested.

In article ,
says...

You tell me, why I should pay twice for my T.v, just because I want a
bit more choice?

The fact that you are too stupid to realise that the purchase cost of an
item is not the total operational cost is your problem. You only pay
once for your TV if you only use it to receive non-broadcast material -
just as you only pay the purchase cost of the vehicle if you only drive
it on private roads. As soon as you connect to signals broadcast over
the geographic limits of the United Kingdom then you must also pay for
that facility, exactly the same as you pay for the right to drive on
public roads in the country as well.



You prat, I know all that, I pay twice to watch my T.V, once to the BBc
and once to Sky, why should I pay the BBc , if I do not want to watch
it.
Before you say it, yes I do watch the BBc, but not very often, after
all, I got to pay for it, so I may as well use it.
But, if I did not have to pay for the BBC, I would never watch it.

A mate of mine got Sky, have never watched a BBC channel since he had
Sky installed, ok so the channels he do watch most of the programmes
come from the BBC, but that is not the point.
Now why should he pay for something he do not use?
We seem to do that in this country, like paying for Schools that we do
not use.

In article ,
says...



Why do you think you have a right to operate a receiver without paying
any license for its operation? Ignore what the license funds - that is
irrelevant to your argument. Do you really think you have any more
right to operate a TV without license than a beer drinker has to avoid

I should have the right to operate a receiver free.

paying tax and duty on the alcohol he imbibes, or a smoker tax on the
tobacco he burns? You might note that these products are still
advertised, though with restrictions, and their advertising budgets
mainly go to other TV stations.

Should the license fee be scrapped and a fixed percentage of the tax on
products advertised on other channels be used to fund the national,
government independent, public service broadcaster? I think the BBC
would be much better off if they did, but I doubt that you as a consumer
would be - though you are probably too stupid to notice the money being
lifted from your wallet.

why on earth do the insults have to be thrown, can you not have a
discussion with out doing so?
No wonder this poxy country is getting worse.


The current system lets you see exactly how much it costs to run a
competitive TV system - you might not like it, but hiding that cost wont
make it any less, quite the contrary!


I want to pay as a subscription, if I want to watch BBC, if not then I
should not have to pay for it.
simple as that really. Paying tax on alcohol and tabacco is a different
thing, well it would be if the money went somewhere decent. It should go
to pay for the NHS. BTW, I do not smoke. I do drink now and again and I
do not mind paying the tax, but I do think it should be lowered a little
bit.

In article ,
says...

k!

And right on cue my local freebie paper arrived on my doorstep tonight
with a leading article about someone from the town who had been killed
on the M25 *because* an Essex Police car had flagged down another
motorist using unauthorised means, which that inexperienced motorist had
misunderstood, panicked and slowed immediately - in the fast lane! The
following vehicle, well inside the speed limit, dodged to avoid the
slowing vehicle and subsequently crashed into the central barrier
killing driver and seriously injuring 3 passengers. Essex Police are
conducting an internal investigation into their traffic police training
procedures.

Speed doesn't kill - its differential speed that is the problem. As one
Chief Constable remarked prior to retiring over 10 years ago: there is
no reason at all why motorway speed limits should not exceed 100mph -
everyone is travelling in the same direction and there are 3 lanes in
which to safely distribute the differential speed.

The main problem is the way people drive, but since most of them can not
drive correctley at 30 MPH, I would not like them going at 100MPH..ll
I walk to work and back and some of things I see, makes me happy I do
not crive, because I think 80% of the people who are driving, should
either give up or take another test.,


The Germans have done it for more than half a century - are the British
just too stupid to be allowed to, just as the media are suggesting we
are too stupid to be allowed civilised drinking times?

Germany got better roads than us for a start, our motorways are falling
apart, In Geramny their Autobahns are in good condition.
Oh yes Whyh is Germanyh now cutting the speed limits down on some
autobahns?

As for drinking times, when the asshole who go out getting ****ed out of
their heads and stopped causing problem where ever they go, then we
should have civalised drinking times. But I do not think this 24 hours
drinking is a good idea. I heard that one town is not going to allow it,
I hope our councle will do the same thing.




And don't forget, the national speed limit was introduced in this
country in 1973 during the fuel crisis as an economy measure - it has
nothing whatsoever to do with saving lives: if you hit a someone at
30mph, 20% will die, if you hit them at 40mph 80% will die, you hit them
at 50mph 99.9% will die - so it doesn't matter whether you are doing
70mph or 150mph, you and everyone you hit *will* die. 70mph is legal,
150mph is not but, using exactly the same arguments as for residential
limits, the national speed limit doesn't save any lives.


As I said, people should learn to drive and then maybe we can raise the
limits. But I still believe that keeping the speed linits save lives.

In article ,
says...


At the moment that may be the case, in the future it certainly won't be
and that is the stated aim of the services providing TV by phone. So
there is no difference.

Oh great, we already got brainless people criving, wlking, riding
trying to ext people, now we will have then watching T.V.


The point is that investment in the road system is under the influence
and control of the government of the day. The BBC has an obligation
under its charter to remain independent of government influence.


And it does that very well, not.
The BBc is Pr-europe, pro-goverment.

As pointed out previously and by others, the license has nothing
whatsoever to do with the BBC - it is a tax on the operation of a TV
receiver. The expenditure of that tax by hypothecation to fund the BBC
is completely independent of the existence of the tax. If you want a
meaningful discussion then ask why other TV services do not benefit as
much as the BBC from the TV licence. Elimination of the BBC will not
eliminate the TV license, no matter how much choice you think you have.


I do not want to get rid of the BBc, I just think we should have a
choice if we want to pay for it. Why can't the BBc do advertising?
We can now have subscrition, the technology for that have been around
for years, even before digital was around.
But the problem here is this license is getting more expensive each
year and yet we do not see nothing extra for it.



What the hell have this got to do with the T.v licence?

Absolutely everything - the fact that you cannot understand it has
little to do with this thread other than to signify your political
ignorance to all who might be reading it.



I got nothing to do with it, I do agree with what you say, but it going
nothing to do with the license.

In article ,
[email protected] says...


Oh come on, you can still see almost everything on a 14inch screen, you
need a magnifying glass to see some of the screens on these mobiles.

That doesn't alter the content being provided, your choice of platform
is immaterial.


It is not everyones choice of platform is it. I could not very well
stick a 28 inch T.v where I was living at the time and I could not
afford to even if I wanted to.


I must admit, that when I had my 14 inch T.v, I did not pay a licence
fee.

So as well as being stupid you are also a thief. *plonk*

I do not know why I am replying to this, since you will not see it.
But I see you have lerned how to use the filter on your news reader
then.

I am sure that most people in this group have copied a record, tape, or
recorded of the radio or even the T.v and kept it.
How many people in this news group got software running on their
computer that have been copied. These are all theft.

As for me not paying for a license fee, I was away from the flat 95% of
my time, and there was not way I was going to pay for a license fee for
something that was used about a hour a month.

Like it all lump it, I do not care.

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfur Million
writes

But, so what? That's just the way
money works - the important thing is that if I wasn't happy with the
purchase I wouldn't have made it.

So its OK to take the view "that's the way money works" when it comes to
advertising supporting the media, but not OK to take the view "that's
the way money works" when it comes to taxation. You seem to have a
number of standards, exceeding one, to suit any particular circumstance.

Ho hum. On the contrary, I am being entirely consistent. When I buy a packet
of breakfast cereal I am happy with that purchase. When I watch C4 I pay the
BBC £125 and I am not happy with that "purchase". I am, for example, quite
happy to buy BBC publications (books or DVD, whatever) when I think that I
am getting value for money for that deal.


Suppose someone feels this way about the BBC? Why should they have to
forego
watching television in order to make such a boycott?

Why should I have to forego buying products on the British market simply
because I do not watch ITV?

Clearly you don't. Nice use of snipping BTW. Now perhaps you can answer the
question about why someone with a moral or political reason to boycott the
BBC should also forego watching TV?

That same swords cuts in many different
ways and just because you don't like the license fee doesn't make it any
less justified.

And just because you like the BBC's programmes doesn't make it any more
justified, but it is becoming apparent that this is the basis for your
argument.


From the BBC's annual review. Their expenditure in 2004 financial year
was a
tad over £4 billion. In contrast, C4's was £770 million (taking Adrian's
figures posted elsewhere in this thread). I would certainly swap the BBC
for
5 C4's!

You might, I wouldn't. I rarely watch much C4 output, perhaps an hour
or so per week - in fact I can't think of a single C4 programme I would
go out of my way to watch or even watched in the past week. C4 (& C5

Thought so ...

for that matter) are still very minority channels whose own management
openly admit they can barely support their operating costs and are
incapable of expanding into the new medium of digital broadcasting
without license fee support. So they are hardly comparable with the
organisation that has been obliged to step and rescue DVBT - all out of
the funding it receives from money raised by the license fee! Without
the BBC (and the license fee!) there would be no DVBT today at all,
following the OnDodgy fiasco.

DVBT is clearly more important to you than it is to me - perhaps this is
only to be expected in a digital-tv newsgroup. Maybe if there weren't such a
dominant dinosaur as the BBC in the market, better technologies would have
been developed sooner. Whatever you feel about the content of Sky's packages
(and I'd probably agree with you there - it seems to me that the technology
of TV is more interesting that what's broadcast over it) it must be said
that Sky extended the possibilities in a way that the BBC never would have
in that timeframe.


To obtain countless channels of sh!t on Sky I would not only pay a
subscription fee which is vastly more expensive than the TV license
*and* the advertising levy on all of the products and companies that
feature at regular intervals throughout their broadcasts.

*And* the TV licence!

No, the comparison was expense of the BBC versus Sky.

Absolutely, in order to obtain the countless channels of dark matter you
would have to pay a subscription fee *plus* the Licence fee.

Your argument has
been that the BBC should pack up and the license fee be abolished
because the BBC is far too expensive for what it provides - abolishing
the license fee would not make Sky's subscription any less.

No! My argument is that the Licence fee should not have to be paid by people
who do not use the BBC. For *me*, the BBC is far too expensive for what it
provides and I do not wish to pay for it. If *you* like its products and are
willing to share its costs (with the others who like it) then long may the
BBC prosper and provide a service that its customers enjoy. I am not
promoting abolition of the BBC.

In addition
to a subscription much greater than the license fee, Sky are also funded
by advertising - shafting its users at both ends.

Yet so many people still subscribe to it, despite *also* paying for the BBC.
You may find this incomprehensible, and I have said that I wouldn't
subscribe to them either, but that's the way it is.



I can't say I've been particularly attracted to the Sky package either,
but
for the life of me I can't see why people who want Sky's channels (and
not
the BBC ones) should have to contribute to the BBC - whether it's out of
general taxation or not.

Because it isn't a BBC fund - it is a tax on operating a TV receiver.

It's a tax used to fund the BBC (which is also supported by general
taxation).

I
don't see why I should pay for a state education system, whether in
general taxation or not, since I don't make any use of it or a state
health service when I pay my own private medical insurance,

Education and health are essential services, do you really want to apply the
same rules to these as for light entertainment? I don't make use of the
state education system either and I too have private medical insurance - but
I can see that a healthy and well-educated society is a benefit to everyone.
I do not see the benefit to me of the chap next door watching Eastenders. Of
course how health and education are funded is highly debatable and different
people have different ideas according to their politics - but at least there
is an intended benefit for all people from providing these things.

but I don't
have a choice in either of them, if I earn an income in this country
then I have to pay for things I don't want or use - didn't someone just
say "that's the way money works"!

But you can argue against the way public money is spent, and try to win the
political argument. You could also draw a distinction between the way
private individuals spend their money and the way governments spend *your*
money - but then you would run the risk of being accused of having mutliple
standards.

Regards,
Arfur

In article , Ad wrote:
I am sure that most people in this group have copied a record, tape, or
recorded of the radio or even the T.v and kept it.

I regularly record TV programmes, but I have always paid the licence fee
for the right to receive them, after which it makes no financial
difference to anybody when I choose to watch. I have also made copies of
CDs for use in the car (because I would never dream of risking the
originals), but again, if they are my own CDs that I have paid for, the CD
companies have not been deprived of their money for my use of their
product. I've only got one pair of ears and can think of no justification
for paying twice for the same thing.

I think you were talking about receiving TV broadcasts for which you are
obliged to pay and not paying at all, which is a slightly different
situation.

Rod.

In article , Ad wrote:
I do not want to get rid of the BBc, I just think we should have a
choice if we want to pay for it. Why can't the BBc do advertising?

Because it wouldn't be the "BBC" if it did. BBC stands for British
Broadcasting Corporation, which means it's not a commercial company.
It's a public service which is paid for out of public money, meaning
money that is not directly dependent on the sale of anything, and so
the programme makers are not subject to the same pressures as those
that apply to commercial programme makers.

The way the money is collected by means of a licence is extremely
labour intensive, and I cannot help thinking there must be a better
way, but it is definitely not advertising. That wouldn't be collecting
the money by a different method, it would be different money.

Rod.