TV licence evasion...
 

"Stephen H" wrote in message
...
I read this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22947160

I then got thinking.

The BBC could wipe this out by simply using smart card technology on both
freeview, freesat and "freesat from Sky" platforms and as a levy on top of
a regular sky card subscription.

Clearly the technology exists..... the saving made by not prosecuting the
TV licence evaders would probably cover the costs of setting up the smart
cards, the CA system, the data centre to enable or switch off smart cards
based on a licence payers's bill status.... it would also allow monthly
direct debiting and annual fee payments.

When was the last time Sky prosecuted a Sky subscriber for not paying for
their Sky? They simply switch the card off and pass the debt to the debt
collection agency. At most it would only be a few months worth, not up to
a whole year or even more depending on how long the person has evaded the
licence for...

Discuss......

"Dyke 'promoted Freeview to save licence fee'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/17/broadcasting.digitaltv

TV licence evasion...
 

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stephen H wrote:

The BBC could wipe this out by simply using smart card technology on
both freeview, freesat and "freesat from Sky" platforms and as a levy on
top of a regular sky card subscription.

So we'd need to buy new TVs and set-top boxes again? And all computer
TV tuners would become useless? Sounds wonderful for the
manufacturers.

The extra cost to users would be far more than the loss from licence
non-payers. The inconvenience alone would outweigh it.

-- Richard

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/17/broadcasting.digitaltv

TV licence evasion...
 

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:23:21 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

because then people could simply choose to not subscribe to the bbc -
whereas at the moment people are obliged by law to subscribe in order to
watch any tv.
lots of people would live without the bbc - less money for them.

I often wonder about this. If everything was subscription based, how many
would still have the BBC? Of course many who complain about the licence
also say they never watch the BBC. But usually lie...

If everything was subscription based it would make more sense to pay
for programmes than channels. Already I use a PVR to select individual
programmes I want to watch, regardless of which channels they're on,
in the same way that I'll buy individual books I want to read
regardless of which publishing house they come from.

Conventional broadcasters probably wouldn't survive in any
recognisable form if we were able to make our own choices about what
we thought was of sufficient quality to be worth paying for without it
being a criminal offence to fail to pay for all the dross as well, but
then, why would they deserve to?

Rod.

TV licence evasion...
 

In article , Martin
wrote:


Funding from the infrastructure is not done on a daily basis, except
perhaps in Greece at the moment. The Dutch policy of not collecting
taxes separately for individual items used by most of the population
works well. I'm amazed the coalition hasn't gone that way to reduce
costs.

It may be because UK governments/parliament tend to say that they hate
'hypoticated' taxes'. i.e. The idea that a specific identifiable portion of
your tax bill is for a specific purpose.

Yes, we do have it in a sense already in 'National Insurance' but they seem
to feel that has been kept distinct enough to calm their fear.

The basis of the fear seems twofold.

1) That some people might then start to withold the portion for something
they object to - e.g. Trident replacement.

2) That people will notice that benefits and taxes generally evade
specifying the real costs they are (supposedly) based upon. - e.g. benefit
payments for daily living fail to indicate how much is for food, etc.

So by avoiding such hypothications the Government can play games with the
amount of money and its assignment whilst obfuscating so the public can't
check what the politicians / civil servants / etc claim.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

TV licence evasion...
 

The problem with the BBC is their prolific wastage of money.

Why do their staff need to stay in five-star hotels amongst other
things?

Why do panelists on Question Time (radio and TV) have to have
dinner together at the BBC's expense?

Why do BBC personages have to travel everywhere by taxi or
chauffer-driven limo at BBC expense?

If my employer says I can spend up to £100 per night (£150 inside
M25) and that is quite satisfactory for decent accommodation then
why cannot the Beeb do something similar, then if the lovies want
to stay somewhere better they can pay the balance themselves.

I won't even go into golden hellos, pay offs, or staffing
levels..........

We all pay for a licence the funding of which goes to HMG, and
then HMG fund Auntie. There is nothing to say that licence income
bears any relation whatsoever to running costs. Get rid of the TV
licence, close down TV Licencing (oh dear, that will put Capita
people out of work....) and give the Beeb the money that was paid
to Capita in addition to what they are paid now, inflation-proof
it at the lower rate and make the Beeb cut their cloth to suit.

The problem is that $ky will just come in and flood the market to
entice Beeb staff away and the Beeb will eventually fold.



--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

TV licence evasion...
 

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:35:40 +0100, "Woody"
wrote:

The problem with the BBC is their prolific wastage of money.

Why do their staff need to stay in five-star hotels amongst other
things?

Why do panelists on Question Time (radio and TV) have to have
dinner together at the BBC's expense?

Why do BBC personages have to travel everywhere by taxi or
chauffer-driven limo at BBC expense?
[etc]

Because nobody stops them. The BBC's income is guaranteed regardless
of what they do, and we're the criminals if we don't pay.

Rod.

TV licence evasion...
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:35:40 +0100, "Woody"

wrote:

The problem with the BBC is their prolific wastage of money.

Why do their staff need to stay in five-star hotels amongst
other
things?

Why do panelists on Question Time (radio and TV) have to have
dinner together at the BBC's expense?

Why do BBC personages have to travel everywhere by taxi or
chauffer-driven limo at BBC expense?
[etc]

Because nobody stops them. The BBC's income is guaranteed
regardless
of what they do, and we're the criminals if we don't pay.

Rod.


Exactly my point.


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

TV licence evasion...
 

In article ,
Woody wrote:
The problem with the BBC is their prolific wastage of money.

It's probably not much different from any similar company.

Why do their staff need to stay in five-star hotels amongst other
things?

*All* their staff are put up in 5 star hotels? Things have changed since I
worked there. ;-)

Why do panelists on Question Time (radio and TV) have to have
dinner together at the BBC's expense?

Hospitality before this sort of prog is the norm. To introduce the
panellists to one another, etc. And if you were working away from home
you'd expect meals out to be provided or paid for?

Why do BBC personages have to travel everywhere by taxi or
chauffer-driven limo at BBC expense?

The answer is they don't.

If my employer says I can spend up to £100 per night (£150 inside
M25) and that is quite satisfactory for decent accommodation then
why cannot the Beeb do something similar, then if the lovies want
to stay somewhere better they can pay the balance themselves.

Ah. You're talking about the talent, not staff?

--
*My wife has a slight impediment in her speech. She stops to breathe.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

TV licence evasion...
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin
wrote:

Funding from the infrastructure is not done on a daily basis, except
perhaps in Greece at the moment. The Dutch policy of not collecting
taxes separately for individual items used by most of the population
works well. I'm amazed the coalition hasn't gone that way to reduce
costs.

It may be because UK governments/parliament tend to say that they hate
'hypoticated' taxes'. i.e. The idea that a specific identifiable portion
of
your tax bill is for a specific purpose.

Yes, we do have it in a sense already in 'National Insurance' but they
seem
to feel that has been kept distinct enough to calm their fear.

The basis of the fear seems twofold.

1) That some people might then start to withold the portion for something
they object to - e.g. Trident replacement.

2) That people will notice that benefits and taxes generally evade
specifying the real costs they are (supposedly) based upon. - e.g. benefit
payments for daily living fail to indicate how much is for food, etc.

3) They can spend the money on anything they damn well please.

--
Max Demian

TV licence evasion...
 

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:38:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


So by avoiding such hypothications the Government can play games with
the amount of money and its assignment whilst obfuscating so the public
can't check what the politicians / civil servants / etc claim.

It's not difficult to find the military budget as a proportion of the
total budget.

Such aggregated values can then be treated by government as 'unofficial
estimates' and dismissed as 'inaccurate, misleading, out of date' and so
on. The point here is plausible (in legal terms) deniability and to respond
with aloof dismissal. It all aids goverment to duck issues they want to
avoid. And as has been pointed out, to let them use the money however they
choose without people peering over their shoulder and being able to see all
their sums.

All made much easier in these days of PFIs, outsourcing, agencies, etc. The
quickness of the hand fools they eye...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html