http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/10/02 ... v-licence/

It's a good question, isn't it?

Considering how the licence fee is effectively used these days by a few more people than the BBC, the invention of that internet thing, the nonsense of the TV detector vans that can't go into certain areas for fear of never coming out again (while everyone else pays their licence) etc, I think it's time the whole thing was modernized now rather than later. Though I'd fully expect us to get less for more once the government's finished

The more time goes on, the more I think I'd just like to use my TV for only games and films anyway - I still hear and read counter arguments to the legality of me needing a licence in that situation too, right down to whether the TV detector twit is actually allowed to step over my door if I tell him/her not to (similar to vampires I believe ).

Because the iPlayer doesn't show programmes as they are being broadcast on TV (although if you were using iPlayer to stream BBC programmes, you'd need a TV licence). I agree it's rather bizarre.

If that's right, and I'm not getting at you here , that kinda gives credence to the argument of 'Why shouldn't I download it from a torrent if iPlayer lets me watch it later on anyway?'.

And doesn't iPlayer hold episodes/series for longer than it used to in some cases now?

I think that's pretty much just the stuff produced by the BBC, and maybe some other British productions. You won't ever see American titles being available to view for extended periods, because we don't have the licence for it.

I do think it's nuts that you can watch iPlayer without a licence, but you need one to watch a live sports stream from some foreign broadcaster. After all; I'm paying for the BBC's bandwidth bill out of my licence fee whether I choose to watch it or not.

I've always said that a subscription model is the way forward. Don't pay, don't get. End of argument.

That would be the end of all non commercial radio and local programs and the descent into all schedules designed for the lowest common denominator. High quality programs would become even rarer and the cost would go ever higher.

Explain?

Replace the licence with a subscription. The revenue generated should be comparable, but rather than wasting untold thousands sending out letters to people with no licence they simply wouldn't be able to watch BBC.

Or are you suggesting that given the choice, most people would forgo the BBC and watch only commercial TV? If that's the case, then we should do like most other countries. Admit that the TV licence is a tax, and pay for it directly from government funds. If it's to be considered a public service, then it should be publicly funded.

A TV is not a dog.

If the BBC goes to a subscription model then it will be just like every other commercial broadcaster - chasing ratings instead of making quality programming. And no, the two do not go hand-in-hand (see Fox in the USA for details).

The BBC drags the other channels up in the United Kingdom. ITV and Channel 4 (not to mention Sky channels) would be utter cesspits without it.

They got around that here by saying, that if you don't have a television, but do have a computer connected to the internet, you have to pay the licence fee...

See, that's one of the 'lines' that keeps popping up over here too, with arguments for and against whether it's even true

Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That's such a ridiculous idea and I would oppose it outright.

The other question related to this would be, what about people who only use the internet to listen to BBC Radio? We don't have a tv, we don't watch the iplayer but I do listen to internet Radio 2. I also listen to it in my car, so what about the car radio listeners? How are they accountable?

The TV license fee only applies to TV, if they want to start charging people for internet use, they will need to invent a new license fee for people who watch TV through the internet, and figure out how to police that.

I am in favour of everyone accepting it is a tax. The government then would be able to save £700 million that is normally lost in collecting it. They could then save on the TV detector vans and use them to stop pirate radio stations etc. It would then be able to save money that they would use to clear the debt.

It might be ridiculous, but it is what it is. Why should I worry about what they can't get right? With the advent of TV on mobile devices and streaming etc. lots of people need new business models - not just the BBC. This will need to be sorted at some point in the near future, or they will all lose out.

For now, I'm happy to be a freeloader thanks.