Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaithis
Then I'm sure you won't mind donating me £140 a year for nothing, after all its only a pint of beer a week!
Many people do not watch BBC, yet feel cornered into paying the fee, especially after the 4th or 5th visit you get to check your not watching it.....so that it becomes a tax against being hassled every month by detector vans.
Except you aren't providing me any service for that. :)
I don't donate a licence fee, I pay it because I own a Television. It is an optional tax for a service I choose to receive.
And in that sense it is unlike any other tax, as I can't opt out of paying for the NHS, even if I chose to use private medical services, and neither can I choose to opt out of paying for the state educational system, even if I have my children educated privately.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
I'm confused, why are you arguing as if those opposed to the license system are out to destroy the BBC? The BBC isn't synonymous with the license. The license is just a mechanism of funding. That's all.
Because you don't get this kind of service unless you employ some kind of taxation. A commercially funded service could not have this breadth and scope, and its commercial needs would trump its directives.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peterb
Except you aren't providing me any service for that. :)
That's kinda his point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peterb
I don't donate a licence fee, I pay it because I own a Television.
Sure, but owning a TV isn't a service, it's possession of property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peterb
It is an optional tax for a service I choose to receive.
It's also an optional tax for a service you don't choose to receive. So... not optional at all, unless you chuck out your TV altogether.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Otherhand
Because you don't get this kind of service unless you employ some kind of taxation.
Because taxes magically make everything cheaper? Or is it you don't mind forcing a minority of people to pay for something they never use to subsidise your entertainment?
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
A person could have a number of reasons to not consume its content. They could simply not like it. They could be abroad for most of the year. They could be a cable cutter. I could go on. But needless to say, there are reasons, and all of them are completely reasonable.
There are many reasons why people wouldn't use the NHS, all of them are reasonable, should they be allowed to abstain from paying in to support the service? If so, how well do you think it'd work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Is it? Oh dear.
Undeniably so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Which is still much less than everyone.
But is more than the minority!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
And it'll carry on being a public service that's part of your civil society with or without the license. Nobody is saying nuke the BBC from orbit.
Perhaps, but like all public services, it's the best funding method to cater for all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
It's only 'free' to use as long as you have a license. If you own a TV, you're 'free' to pay for a license whether or not you consume BBC content. So no, it's not free in any sense of the word.
You can own a TV and not have a license. Regardless, consider it one of those things (like the NHS) where you pay even if you're not ill. Then you'll feel better about it ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Will you die/be crippled if you don't get BBC service? I don't see how they're in any way comparable.
They're entirely comparable, because they're both public services that operate under the same founding principles. You just don't like the comparison, because it puts your point in perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
It would still be in the means of the majority of people who live in the UK if its funding method was changed.
Disagree entirely. You can't have valuable public services at the mercy of a system where people could simply decide not to pay one month or so every year. How well do you think other public services (like the NHS) would do if they had no idea of the funding from month to month?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Sky is a private company. They're a useful guideline as far as what's possible is concerned, but hardly equivalent for costs.
Agree'd, you pay far far more, still have adverts and get very little educational, inspirational or cultural value.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Because taxes magically make everything cheaper? Or is it you don't mind forcing a minority of people to pay for something they never use to subsidise your entertainment?
There are probably many people who pay for their own healthcare, so
"Or is it you don't mind forcing a minority of people to pay for something they never use to subsidise your healthcare?"
is equally true.
Plenty of people have no children:-
"Or is it you don't mind forcing a minority of people to pay for something they never use to subsidise your childs education?"
I don't know if you have children, but you can probably see where I'm going with this......
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
That's kinda his point.
Sure, but owning a TV isn't a service, it's possession of property.
It's also an optional tax for a service you don't choose to receive. So... not optional at all, unless you chuck out your TV altogether.
Well, if you are going to be pedantic, I pay a fee to have a device installed and capable of receiving broadcast media. Possessing a TV or other device that isn't installed for receiving broadcast media doesn't require a licence.
Of course, the BBC could be funded out of general taxation, then everyone pays regardless (assuming you are a tax payer)
But the point of a publicly funded broadcaster is that it has the freedom (and in the BBCs case, remit) to produce content that has some appeal to everyone at some time.
Not everything the BBC broadcasts appeals to me, but it probably appeals to someone, somewhere.
That may be a minority interest that would not be considered by a commercially funded broadcaster because they wouldn't get the return on investment.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
There are probably many people who pay for their own healthcare, so
"Or is it you don't mind forcing a minority of people to pay for something they never use to subsidise your healthcare?"
is equally true.
Plenty of people have no children:-
"Or is it you don't mind forcing a minority of people to pay for something they never use to subsidise your childs education?"
I don't know if you have children, but you can probably see where I'm going with this......
Comparing an entertainment service to health and education?
Of course, they should all be painted with the same brush /sarcasm.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaithis
Comparing an entertainment service to health and education?
Of course, they should all be painted with the same brush /sarcasm.
It's called an analogy, or an example it helps get a point across. /sarcasm
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Because taxes magically make everything cheaper? Or is it you don't mind forcing a minority of people to pay for something they never use to subsidise your entertainment?
Because you need a service that has as little fear as possible. The BBC has been hurt considerably by the fear in which the Tory government has placed it, but it would be a 24/7 thing for a commercial business that lived or died on the whims of subscribers and advertisers.
And no, I don't mind forcing a minority to pay for something they never use. That's the nature of taxation. I keep myself fit, I eat well, I barely drink, but I don't begrudge people needing the NHS when I don't, be it through bad luck or bad decisions. I would vote against the wars we've involved ourselves in if I could, but my taxes will be spent on weapons and fighting anyway. I don't use libraries and buy my own books, but I'm happy to pay for those because their existence is a net plus for all of society. I don't have a degree, but my taxes need to be spent on universities for the common good. Public sports services, roads (I don't drive), swimming pools (I can't swim), coast guards (I don't go in the sea), the list goes on.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
There are many reasons why people wouldn't use the NHS, all of them are reasonable, should they be allowed to abstain from paying in to support the service? If so, how well do you think it'd work?
An opt-out NHS? More or less the same as it does now, only with a somewhat smaller pool of payees and patients. Does the NHS start buckling every time someone dies on them and stops paying national insurance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
Undeniably so.
Sounds like Britain's media standards are horrible, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
But is more than the minority!
So it's OK to rob a minority because they're smaller and weaker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
Perhaps, but like all public services, it's the best funding method to cater for all.
Is it? The problem with involuntary taxation schemes like the TV license is the tax spenders have little to no accountability to the payees. We put up with a certain amount of waste and crappy service with national insurance because it's a safety net that you'd be royally screwed without if it weren't there. If the BBC weren't there, you'd be forced to shed a patriotic tear, and flick between all the other channels that are broadcasting OTA, or maybe try that new internet thingy. Not exactly the end of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
You can own a TV and not have a license.
Sure, and it'll look great sitting in your room as a useless decoration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
Regardless, consider it one of those things (like the NHS) where you pay even if you're not ill. Then you'll feel better about it ;)
Why would I consider it that? If I get hit by a car will I have to watch Casualty to fix my broken ribs? If I get cancer will watching Eastenders send it into remission?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
They're entirely comparable, because they're both public services that operate under the same founding principles.
Vaguely, in terms of means of funding, kinda... but it's still a red herring. Healthcare is an essential service. TV broadcasting isn't an essential service. Hell it's not even the principle means by which we receive information anymore. We may as well establish a national internet service provider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
Disagree entirely. You can't have valuable public services...
It's only valuable to the people who care to use it. Those people are still going to pay for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
...at the mercy of a system where people could simply decide not to pay one month or so every year.
So they don't get service for a month? Well, that's their choice, that's kinda the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
How well do you think other public services (like the NHS) would do if they had no idea of the funding from month to month?
They'd squander less money on administration? But as I already pointed out, not all public services are created equal, nor have equal importance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MonkeyL
Agree'd, you pay far far more, still have adverts and get very little educational, inspirational or cultural value.
Yeah on Sky, but we're not talking about Sky. A state chartered company is a very different beast than a Plc.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
I'm confused, why are you arguing as if those opposed to the license system are out to destroy the BBC? The BBC isn't synonymous with the license. The license is just a mechanism of funding. That's all.
That question is kind of answered by the post below imho.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Otherhand
Because you don't get this kind of service unless you employ some kind of taxation. A commercially funded service could not have this breadth and scope, and its commercial needs would trump its directives.
As otherhand suggests, if we didn't have "TV tax" then the shortfall in funding has to be found by other means. I'm utterly convinced that every time our never-sufficiently-damned governments cut, sorry "reallocate", license fee money BBC Worldwide etc gets more aggressive in its sales pitches - and I really object to buying programmes that I've already paid for via the license fee. Shysters!
Interesting aside, I'd assumed that programmes were purely picked on the anticipated size of their audience - so basically LCD. However, according to a fascinating talk I heard by one of Sky's team, there's also quite a few programmes that are regarded as "niche" yet get aired because the small audience that they draw in is also attractive to high value advertisers. It's something that didn't occur to me previously. However, from the way that the Beeb is going I'm pretty certain that when money is tight that they'll draw back into only doing reality shows and buying in dramas from the US - just look at ITV.
Disclaimer: Sky pays my bills, but they've nothing to do with the opinions expressed herein
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
An opt-out NHS? More or less the same as it does now, only with a somewhat smaller pool of payees and patients. Does the NHS start buckling every time someone dies on them and stops paying national insurance?
You're grasping at straws now....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Sounds like Britain's media standards are horrible, then.
Not really, I think they're pretty high. Go abroad and watch some TV funded by subscriptions/adds... it's generally pretty poor or niche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
So it's OK to rob a minority because they're smaller and weaker?
Lol, yeah.. it's called democracy dude! While the majority want it, the minority will have to lump it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Is it? The problem with involuntary taxation schemes like the TV license is the tax spenders have little to no accountability to the payees. We put up with a certain amount of waste and crappy service with national insurance because it's a safety net that you'd be royally screwed without if it weren't there. If the BBC weren't there, you'd be forced to shed a patriotic tear, and flick between all the other channels that are broadcasting OTA, or maybe try that new internet thingy. Not exactly the end of the world.
Again, you could say the same for every public service. Unfortunately, in a civil society you sometimes have to pay for things you don't use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Sure, and it'll look great sitting in your room as a useless decoration.
Clutching at straws.. AGAIN! You only need a license for live TV, so you can use it to watch anything other than live TV. Hardly a useless decoration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Why would I consider it that? If I get hit by a car will I have to watch Casualty to fix my broken ribs? If I get cancer will watching Eastenders send it into remission?
I think you're missing the point, which is that for a fixed fee that pretty much everyone can afford you get a world class service that caters for all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Vaguely, in terms of means of funding, kinda... but it's still a red herring. Healthcare is an essential service. TV broadcasting isn't an essential service. Hell it's not even the principle means by which we receive information anymore. We may as well establish a national internet service provider.
Not all public services *must* be essential services, they still have value. As for a national internet service provider, if it was cheap and competitive in the way the BBC clearly is, why not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
It's only valuable to the people who care to use it. Those people are still going to pay for it.
Yeah, because the costs of all public services are easily bourne just by those who would use it, aren't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
So they don't get service for a month? Well, that's their choice, that's kinda the point.
No, it shows you have completely missed the point!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
They'd squander less money on administration? But as I already pointed out, not all public services are created equal, nor have equal importance.
In your view, I doubt someone who relies on a lesser used public service to survive would agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
Yeah on Sky, but we're not talking about Sky. A state chartered company is a very different beast than a Plc.
We're talking about what the alternative would be, so that includes Sky... which IMHO offers far lower value for money.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Quote:
Originally Posted by
aidanjt
An opt-out NHS? More or less the same as it does now, only with a somewhat smaller pool of payees and patients. Does the NHS start buckling every time someone dies on them and stops paying national insurance?
.....
Sure, and it'll look great sitting in your room as a useless decoration.
On the latter point, a TV can be used licence-free for watching pre-recorded material, like a film or TV series on disc, or for playing games on your Xbox/PS4 etc.
So, there are valid reasons to possess a TV that don't involve needing a licence.
On the "public service" point, it's about the principle, where the BBC does provide a basic tV service ehich, for some people, is sufficient. I know people that can't afford subscriptoon services, and don't went anything much more than basic "inform, educate and entertain".
But the counterpoint to that, where the NHS was used as an example, is just one of countless services and the NHS is probably not even the brst example. What about libraries? Everybody that pays taxes used to fund them, be it council tax or others, funds libraries regardless of whether they use them.
Or there's council parks. They have to be maintained and we all pay whether we use them or not.
Or education? My parents paid taxes for my education snd that of my generation, but maybe those of my generation that don't have kids should getcan income tax rebate because they're paying for schools and universities that they'll never send non-existent kids to.
At least with the TV licence you do have the option to not consume TV services, and not pay a licence, or to only consume content, BBC or otherwise, by buying films, TV series, documentaries etc, on disc.
Or borrowing those discs from your local library.
The public service argument is that many services, from libraries to roads and rail, from TV to emergency (fire, police, ambulance, etc), from a nuclear submarine fleet to parks and gardens, and education, socisl services, care homes, probation services, and the list goes on and on, are all designated by government (that we elected) as desirable to be provided as public services, where provision is available to all, should you need or desire to take advantage of them, whether you choose to, or need to, or not.
You're already given a break with TV over most or all other public services in that you can at least opt-out of the cost by opting out of using the service. There are quite a few public services I've never needed, and probably never will, but we don't (often) moan about them because they're funded in less overt ways, and we don't notice it. The thing about a TV licence is that it gets our attention because we have to pay it separately, explicitly. so we notice.
If they dumped the licence and buried the cost in general taxation, maybe by increasing NI rates or reducing income tax personsl allowances, there wouldn't be a fraction of the bitching tgat goes on about the licence. Or not after the first few years and the initial outrage had died down.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
I can understand the anger at the mandatory nature of the TV License, especially if you really don't watch BBC content (however unlikely that may be), but people complaining about the loophole closure clearly do watch BBC content and are just whining because that particular gravy train has come to an end.
Frankly, I rather the license remain separate and not get absorbed into some nebulous taxation scheme - at least we can monitor the annual cost.
Re: BBC will close iPlayer licensing 'loophole' on 1st Sept
Is detection possible technically?
Potentially perhaps, but only if WiFi is being used presumably. Even then, the standard of proof might be difficult to obtain.