BBC Resistance
 

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:31:51 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Heracles Pollux wrote:
The BBC's figures say there a 2 million unlicensed properties. (However
those figures were compiled by Zarin Patel who's bonus is affected by them.
I personally think the figures may be higher if deliberate deselection is
counted).

Do they mean properties of any kind, with or without TV sets, or do
they just mean properties in which they think somebody might be
operating a TV set without a licence? In either case, how do they
claim to know?

It sounds suspiciously like one of the record industry's perennial
claims that a specified amount of money is being "lost" as a result of
people making copies of their products.

Rod.

Well, the BBC has to be paid for somehow (assuming people want it to
continue).

Funding from general taxation would remove the idea that the BBC is
constitutionally independent of government. The move towards Trustees
rather than Governors is in theory supposed to strenghten this.

Payment from advertising would probably knacker ITV etc by flooding
the supply side of TV advertising at a time when commercial operators
seem to be in some difficulty. Advertising would certainly **** off a
lot of BBC viewers (and listeners for that matter).

Subscription would seem fairest but would have to wait until after
analogue switch-off. Inevitably the subscription would be higher than
the licence fee as it would be optional. If for example half the
population decided to pay the subscription would double etc. I don't
think there is any method to collect a subscription for radio.

So what do the self styled 'resistance' want? Do they want to end the
BBC or to change the funding arrangements? What would be an
acceptable funding arrangement?

Scott

TV License vs Broadband Internet Only
 

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:36:43 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:


Once you've done that, could you invade England please? Then we can
all have free telly.

Rod.


Oh, we plan to :)




--
We're climbing up the sunshine mountains
Where the pretty breezes blow
We're climbing up the sunshine mountains
Faces all a-glow

BBC Resistance
 

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:50:30 +0000, Mike Henry
wrote:

In , Scott
wrote:

Subscription would seem fairest but would have to wait until after
analogue switch-off.

Why? It's equally impossible either way; it needs millions of people to
buy brand new set-top-boxes regardless of when it is done.

It would have to wait because subscription could not be applied to
analogue. Fairest in principle because people would be given the
choice whether to subscribe to the service.

Inevitably the subscription would be higher than
the licence fee as it would be optional. If for example half the
population decided to pay the subscription would double etc. I don't
think there is any method to collect a subscription for radio.

Or TV. Happily it's far, far, too late to reintroduce pay-DTT to the
masses. Now that we have a proper open market for Freeview there are
millions and millions of affordable DTT boxes out there. (Unlike the old
OnDigital days when it was almost impossible to buy your own DTT box to
keep, to watch all the then FTA DTT channels).

It may well be that by the time of the next licence fee settlement
there will be technology available.

I am also happy with the present system because I value the BBC and it
suits me for the cost to be divided amongst the largest number to keep
my personal contribution down. I don't think that is necessarily fair
though.

What I would really be interested to know is what other countries with
public service broadcasting plan to do. I believe there are other
European countries with publicly funded broadcasters.

Scott

BBC Resistance
 

In article , Scott wrote:
Do they mean properties of any kind, with or without TV sets, or do
they just mean properties in which they think somebody might be
operating a TV set without a licence? In either case, how do they
claim to know?

It sounds suspiciously like one of the record industry's perennial
claims that a specified amount of money is being "lost" as a result of
people making copies of their products.

Rod.

Well, the BBC has to be paid for somehow (assuming people want it to
continue).

Of course it does, but if they want it to continue to be paid for by
means of a legally enforced licence that has to be bought by *everybody*
who watches *any* television whether it's BBC or not, then they'll have
to present a rational argument for this that still makes sense in a world
with more than one television channel. Anyone who thinks there still is
such an argument won't advance their case by inventing misleading
statistics that are based on speculation.

Rod.

BBC Resistance
 

Look you guys, as I keep telling you this is perfectly simple. They should
abolish the TV license and finance the BBC from general taxation, with the
amount protected from short term government intervention by an independent
body. This body would only need to meet once in a flood so it wouldn't need
to cost much. Then everyone without a telly could apply for a 'no telly'
rebate, payable at the post office. It would only be payable into a bank
account. Then the powers that be would only need to chase the few that
applied for the rebate. To get the rebate you'd have to show that you had a
fixed abode with utility bills etc, otherwise the gypsies etc would be
claiming. No students or similar riff-raff would be eligible of course. The
only ones who'd get it would be these mad people who won't let their kids
see telly in case they learn about opinions that differ from their parents.
I mean these people who don't have carpets and probably eat raw veg. and
burn used Tampax wrapped in the Guardian to heat the house in the interests
of recycling, and make out they're more moral than the rest of us. I expect
the TV licence Gestapo would land on them and discover TV cards in their
PCs, and cart them all off to jug, where they'd learn what chips taste like
when the fat hasn't been changed since the establishment opened in 1996.

I might have veered into off-topic territory here, for which I apologise. In
fact, I think this is an 'I'll get my coat' moment.

I'll get my coat.

Bill

TV License vs Broadband Internet Only
 

"Peter Hayes" wrote in message
om...
Heracles Pollux wrote:
Or if you're fortunate enough to live in Scotland just wait a couple of
years until we get independence, then the BBC won't bother you ever
again.

The sooner the Scots bugger off the better. The we can stop paying them all
their giros to **** up the wall on 8X. Bloody Scotland costs England a
fortune. No real ale either.

Bill

BBC Resistance
 

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 00:39:32 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Scott wrote:
Do they mean properties of any kind, with or without TV sets, or do
they just mean properties in which they think somebody might be
operating a TV set without a licence? In either case, how do they
claim to know?

It sounds suspiciously like one of the record industry's perennial
claims that a specified amount of money is being "lost" as a result of
people making copies of their products.

Rod.

Well, the BBC has to be paid for somehow (assuming people want it to
continue).

Of course it does, but if they want it to continue to be paid for by
means of a legally enforced licence that has to be bought by *everybody*
who watches *any* television whether it's BBC or not, then they'll have
to present a rational argument for this that still makes sense in a world
with more than one television channel. Anyone who thinks there still is
such an argument won't advance their case by inventing misleading
statistics that are based on speculation.

Well, I was trying to make an argument by setting out a number of
options which you have snipped and ignored. You have also attributed
paragraphs to me that I did not post.

If you wish to respond to my posts, please have the courtesy to quote
me correctly then address your response to what I have actually said
and not a single sentence taken out of context. If you read my post
you will find that I said I thought subscription would probably be the
fairest method.

Scott

BBC Resistance
 

Scott wrote:

What I would really be interested to know is what other countries with
public service broadcasting plan to do. I believe there are other
European countries with publicly funded broadcasters.

Only one other I think, Sweden's SVT. All the other European PSBs are now
funded by a mixture of 'tax/licence' and advertising.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

BBC Resistance
 

Scott wrote:
snip
If you wish to respond to my posts, please have the courtesy to quote
me correctly then address your response to what I have actually said
and not a single sentence taken out of context. If you read my post
you will find that I said I thought subscription would probably be the
fairest method.

Scott

He didn't respond to your post, he responded to Roderick Stewart. If your
going to complain about atribution get it right yourself.

TV License vs Broadband Internet Only
 

Bill Wright wrote:

"Peter Hayes" wrote in message
om...
Heracles Pollux wrote:
Or if you're fortunate enough to live in Scotland just wait a couple of
years until we get independence, then the BBC won't bother you ever
again.

The sooner the Scots bugger off the better. The we can stop paying them all
their giros to **** up the wall on 8X. Bloody Scotland costs England a
fortune. No real ale either.

But we've got uisge beatha, also known as the "water of life"...

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter