Yes, I would like to bet as it happens.
Not everyone has access to cable TV or satellite TV. This is because some people live way out in the country side where cable TV networks dont extend. Some of these people dont want satellite TV, some cannot afford it. So, by your argument, you would like to remove the only method by which they can receive a TV broadcast?
Nice one.
Yes, I would like to bet as it happens.
Not everyone has access to cable TV or satellite TV. This is because some people live way out in the country side where cable TV networks dont extend. Some of these people dont want satellite TV, some cannot afford it. So, by your argument, you would like to remove the only method by which they can receive a TV broadcast?
Nice one.
They already can pay, if they want.
Right now they are certain of a service, regardless of paying for the license fee or not.
You cannot restrict access to things like this to only those who can afford it.
They already can pay, if they want.
Right now they are certain of a service, regardless of paying for the license fee or not.
You cannot restrict access to things like this to only those who can afford it.
And I say again, you simply cannot restrict access to TV broadcasting. You cannot have it so that it is only available to those who are willing to pay a subscription.
Lol, ok then. Although I cant help but think of the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" there for some reason.
So what would have all the people who cannot pay do? Find ways to circumvent any subscription systems going? Do you think that the elderly should be forced to pay for instance, or the blind or the deaf?
Lol, ok then. Although I cant help but think of the phrase "pot calling the kettle black" there for some reason.
So what would have all the people who cannot pay do? Find ways to circumvent any subscription systems going? Do you think that the elderly should be forced to pay for instance, or the blind or the deaf?
so you keep saying but the tv license isnt there only form of revenue is it.
You know as well as i do people in tv earn a fortune and as the op said perhaps if they took a pay cut (and they would still earn a hell of alot) then they wouldnt need license money.
I don't like paying for bbc but my elderly nan did before she died.. obv she got it free so i technicaly helped pay for her and millions of others to watch it.. they cant afford sky tv or hacked cable..
and doesnt it pay for upkeep of the transmitters?? without them we wouldnt have any dvb-t
Do you think that the elderly should be forced to pay for instance, or the blind or the deaf?
The blind and deaf have to pay,at a reduced rate,i do believe
Yup, they certainly do. And I think people over the age of 75 get it for free, in fact I think the whole houshold gets it for free.
As far as I know, Sky and VM dont do this.
The blind and deaf have to pay,at a reduced rate,i do believe
And so by graciously giving people the choice - who then looks after the broadcasting? Or do you expect people to switch over to VM and Sky?
You do realise that Sky and VM dont handle much in the way of broadcasting?
You attempt to paint a picture that without the Beeb keeping the boat afloat that the whole structure would break down around our ears, well I see a hell of a lot of countries around the world doing just nicely without a license being forced down their necks, so I don't think I will panick too much any time soon
Well, blind people can listen to the TV and deaf people can watch it with subtitles?
For those interested in the salary scale, here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/freed...and_responses/2008/RFI20080301_Pay_grades.pdf. It seems like a pretty standard salary scale to me, nothing outrageous on it really.
my mate has no tv in his house, but he has a computer but he still can watch eastenders etc with
bbc iplayer.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.