I don't need a TV licence, but I want one!
Back in January, Ashley Highfield claimed that:
...the number of homes that currently have no television licence, but that do have broadband subscription is currently estimated to be infinitesimally small.Since moving house I find myself with the opportunity to join this 'infinitesimally small' group, and save myself £139.50 a year! At my previous flat I had more TV channels than I could count thanks to Virgin Media, however my new flat couldn't have Virgin Media installed and the current TV aerial picks up a grand total of just three digital channels very badly. As such the TV set is now just used for DVDs and the Wii, I don't live stream TV from the web but rather watch on-demand TV. I no-longer need a TV licence.
Whilst it is entirely possible that I may need a TV licence in the future (e.g., to stream a big news), that is not why I have decided to keep paying my licence. Despite recent polls finding that the moronic-majority believe the licence fee is a 'rip-off', I believe it is worth it even without the 'live' TV. Is there a better way to start the day Radio 4? Is there a better online news service than BBC.com? Is there an on-demand TV service that reaches more devices than the iPlayer (excluding the copyright-happy-YouTube)?
The problem for the BBC is that not everyone thinks the same way as I do. People are more likely to focus on the personal saving of £139.50, rather than the national loss of a great independent broadcaster. The "infinitesimally small" group is going to increase quickly in the near future, and licensing laws need to reflect these changes. Why do you never find people campaigning for higher licence fees covering more devices??
Labels: BBC, tv licence
6 Comments:
The BBC TV Licence is great value if you happen to like the BBC however millions would rather do without it yet are forced to subsidise what you happen to enjoy!
16 December 2008 at 19:00
@TVLR I find it hard to believe that there are 'millions' who would rather do without..but even then, there is a case for a licence fee.
We all 'subsidise' services that some make more use of than others, and others may never use at all. However, if an independent British broadcaster can be thought of as in the public interest overall, then such subsidies are justified.
We can't stop the ignorant swallowing whatever Rupert Murdoch decides to feed them, but we can make sure there are quality alternatives available.
17 December 2008 at 09:29
David,
Please respect the fact that some people like the BBC and some don't? Is this so hard to comprehend?
Paying for the BBC (like a Sky subscription) *IS* a choice... i.e. those (like me) would happily do without a Tell-lie-Vision and so perfectly legally not have to pay for a TV Licence.
Why do you BBC luvvies never understand this law/right?
27 December 2008 at 19:50
You write: "the national loss of a great independent broadcaster" - The BBC independent? Yeah, and I'm a pink fluffy penguin. Truly, you bring new meaning to the phrase 'one-eyed'.
You may wish to pay for Jonathan Ross and Chris Moyles' idiotic, puerile, dumbed-down banter - I do not. Screw the BBC. May it rot in hell.
25 February 2009 at 14:37
@SorenK As most people realise, the BBC consists of far more than the "idiotic, puerile, dumbed-down banter" of Ross and Co., and whilst they are not my particular cup of tea I recognise that there are those that enjoy it.
The BBC is about informing, educating, and entertaining everyone, so I'm sorry you feel that there are not enough programmes on there for pink fluffy penguins.
26 February 2009 at 16:10
Fantastic post!
The BBC TV License is great value!
Unfortunately I came here, But i am so interested on this. Thank to author.
2 September 2009 at 13:01
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home