SteveTu, chosing to pay for Sky, Virgin, BT TV etc is a different situation. Having those is personal choice. Paying the licence fee isn't.
nobody is compelled to own a TV, so, it IS a choice
That's a difficult comparison. Certainly there is a minority of people who do not own a TV, but the vast majority do. It's a primary source of information, knowledge and entertainment for many. So yes you are correct, but much like it's possible to buy groceries without paying VAT, you'd end up with quite a significant limitation.
The fact that TV Licensing are famously aggressive and dismissive of people who don't own a TV (or don't watch live TV, which is the actual test for a license) pretty much underlines the barely voluntary nature of the license.
We've already paid for BBC content via the license fee (tax). A tax payer funded organization, supported by criminal penalties, should not be allowed to demand more money for content - old or new.
And the simple reason that iPlayer expires content after 30 days, actively preventing you from watching something you've already paid for, is so that the BBC can resell that content to other broadcast channels. Which you then have to subscribe to watch, usually on satellite TV, or sit through commercials etc.
Money in the BBC bank. And people wonder why they are desperate to keep the license fee. As an optional subscription the BBC would die in its current form, and that should tell you how well it serves it's stated purpose.
It should be fairly straightforward to access iplayer and sounds from your laptop, a quick search on your Internet browser should bring it up - www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer and www.bbc.co.uk/sounds. If your TV is "smart" i.e. has Internet access, then it probably already has an iplayer app built in. Our's is 8 years old and has an internet button on the remote which leads to the iplayer app. Newer TVs may also offer the other catchup services.
. As an optional subscription the BBC would die in its current form, and that should tell you how well it serves it's stated purpose.
Where is your evidence to support that assertion?
The howls of outrage when the discussion to decriminalize the license fee began and continued, and millions of pounds spent chasing "evaders"? The BBC is fully aware of its precarious, irrelevant position in its current form.
But for evidence, let's take a quick look at all the financial analysis which clearly shows the BBC in its current form is unsustainable without the license fee.Â
Total BBC budget is about £3billion. Various surveys in the last few years have shown half to three quarters of the UK support abolishment of the license fee:
I don't have the other stats to hand regarding number of households estimated who would subscribe to BBC if the license was abolished, but let's assume it's a significant percentage of the 50%-75% supporting abolition (why support it if you'll simply pay it anyway). Let's say it's a third, which feels generously low.
So, faced with perhaps £1 billion shortfall in budget, the BBC immediately becomes unviable in its current form. It would be forced to cut all the additional nonsense (as per my previous post) and return to it's core purpose of tightly focused, valuable content - instead of trying to compete with commercial services.
And at that point, I would happily pay for a subscription or license far cheaper than the current license fee.
A license fee that's currently almost double, for example, the cost of Amazon Prime.
Lots of gay friends of mine refer to their partner as their wife. I haven't noted whether it's all of them, or what distinguishes those who do from those who don't, probably because as long as I know who is being referred to, it doesn't matter to me. It might be those who've had a wedding. Not sure.Â
'If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.'
Posts
The fact that TV Licensing are famously aggressive and dismissive of people who don't own a TV (or don't watch live TV, which is the actual test for a license) pretty much underlines the barely voluntary nature of the license.
We've already paid for BBC content via the license fee (tax). A tax payer funded organization, supported by criminal penalties, should not be allowed to demand more money for content - old or new.
And the simple reason that iPlayer expires content after 30 days, actively preventing you from watching something you've already paid for, is so that the BBC can resell that content to other broadcast channels. Which you then have to subscribe to watch, usually on satellite TV, or sit through commercials etc.
Money in the BBC bank. And people wonder why they are desperate to keep the license fee. As an optional subscription the BBC would die in its current form, and that should tell you how well it serves it's stated purpose.
I advocate digital Darwinism!
But for evidence, let's take a quick look at all the financial analysis which clearly shows the BBC in its current form is unsustainable without the license fee.Â
Total BBC budget is about £3billion. Various surveys in the last few years have shown half to three quarters of the UK support abolishment of the license fee:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/28/three-quarters-want-bbc-licence-fee-abolished-poll-finds/amp/
I don't have the other stats to hand regarding number of households estimated who would subscribe to BBC if the license was abolished, but let's assume it's a significant percentage of the 50%-75% supporting abolition (why support it if you'll simply pay it anyway). Let's say it's a third, which feels generously low.
So, faced with perhaps £1 billion shortfall in budget, the BBC immediately becomes unviable in its current form. It would be forced to cut all the additional nonsense (as per my previous post) and return to it's core purpose of tightly focused, valuable content - instead of trying to compete with commercial services.
And at that point, I would happily pay for a subscription or license far cheaper than the current license fee.
A license fee that's currently almost double, for example, the cost of Amazon Prime.