AS
What? £5 over a whole year? That's 42p a month extra.
However, I DO believe that students SHOULD receive at least a 50% discount on TV licences. They'd probably actually make more money because as a studnet a lot of people I knew didn't bother getting one...
DAS posted:
I seriously cannot afford this as a poor student type. Although that's another debate entirely...
What? £5 over a whole year? That's 42p a month extra.
However, I DO believe that students SHOULD receive at least a 50% discount on TV licences. They'd probably actually make more money because as a studnet a lot of people I knew didn't bother getting one...
MT
Licence Fee threads always turn a bit heated, so let me offer this in advance:
http://www.fireworks.com/images/interior/fw_safety-extinguisher.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/robertpalmer/tvforum/sig.gif
http://www.fireworks.com/images/interior/fw_safety-extinguisher.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/robertpalmer/tvforum/sig.gif
BO
Although the increase is quite substantial, it is needed to enable channels like BBC 3 and 4 to have a decent budget, and allow the BBC to continually innovate with services like BBCi, New and better digital encryption, and in the future, the FREE internet archive.
Surely, this alone justifies the extra money. What I mean is that eventually being able to freely access the entire BBC archive will be truely empowering, and offer long term savings for everyone.
Surely, this alone justifies the extra money. What I mean is that eventually being able to freely access the entire BBC archive will be truely empowering, and offer long term savings for everyone.
LU
I think you'll find that people who see the BBC's digi-services a waste of money won't quite agree with that reason. Especially when they're struggling to pay for themselves, let alone Trevor flamin' Nelson...
boring_user_name posted:
Although the increase is quite substantial, it is needed to enable channels like BBC 3 and 4 to have a decent budget, and allow the BBC to continually innovate with services like BBCi, New and better digital encryption, and in the future, the FREE internet archive.
Surely, this alone justifies the extra money. What I mean is that eventually being able to freely access the entire BBC archive will be truely empowering, and offer long term savings for everyone.
Surely, this alone justifies the extra money. What I mean is that eventually being able to freely access the entire BBC archive will be truely empowering, and offer long term savings for everyone.
I think you'll find that people who see the BBC's digi-services a waste of money won't quite agree with that reason. Especially when they're struggling to pay for themselves, let alone Trevor flamin' Nelson...
DA
What? £5 over a whole year? That's 42p a month extra.
However, I DO believe that students SHOULD receive at least a 50% discount on TV licences. They'd probably actually make more money because as a studnet a lot of people I knew didn't bother getting one...
I cannot afford the licence fee full stop. Hence me saying it's another debate altogether: for some reason known only to "them", EACH student has to pay the FULL amount. Here endeth the student TV Licence debate.
And Aston, I wouldn't mind £5 in my pocket if you wouldn't mind - no matter how little it may seem.
DAS
Founding member
Aston posted:
DAS posted:
I seriously cannot afford this as a poor student type. Although that's another debate entirely...
What? £5 over a whole year? That's 42p a month extra.
However, I DO believe that students SHOULD receive at least a 50% discount on TV licences. They'd probably actually make more money because as a studnet a lot of people I knew didn't bother getting one...
I cannot afford the licence fee full stop. Hence me saying it's another debate altogether: for some reason known only to "them", EACH student has to pay the FULL amount. Here endeth the student TV Licence debate.
And Aston, I wouldn't mind £5 in my pocket if you wouldn't mind - no matter how little it may seem.
SE
Square Eyes
Founding member
Oh hurrah, here we go again, another increase in the television tax. My views on this are quite well known, so don't start me off.
As long as Aston get's his pay rise out of it then that's alright
As long as Aston get's his pay rise out of it then that's alright
CW
Firstly, BBC4 shouldn't exist. There just aren't enough viewers using it to justify it. Secondly, how much more 'innovation' can happen with BBCi? If you mean wasting more and more money on gimmicky 'interactive TV' services, then I hope they do get reigned in.
I thought the archive was actually a gross mis-quotation on the part of BBC News, and it will actually be limited to clips from a handful of popular shows? That doesn't justify however many more millions they will get out of this £5 price hike. And why is 'newer and better digital encryption' worth spending licence fee money on? The BBC by definition are free (except for the licence fee). Why would they bother researching encryption (and don't say 'to stop people in other countries watching' because they seem quite happy for that to happen - and have even spent god knows how much adapting the licence fee funded bbc.co.uk into 'UK' and 'World' versions)? And in any case afaik the BBC have never nor ever intend to develop encryption technologies.
What alone? You mean paying for BBC4, a channel which no one wants, apparant research into encryption which they will not use (and you have just decided they are doing), and 'access the entire BBC archive' just won't happen any time soon. And don't bleat on about value for money. It's all well and good to prattle on about how cheap the licence fee is, but the majority of people doing that are also people who earn so much that they don't notice it. To most people, the licence fee is a considerable burden, and ways of reducing it must be found, not year on year above inflation price rises.
cwathen
Founding member
Quote:
Although the increase is quite substantial, it is needed to enable channels like BBC 3 and 4 to have a decent budget, and allow the BBC to continually innovate with services like BBCi,
Firstly, BBC4 shouldn't exist. There just aren't enough viewers using it to justify it. Secondly, how much more 'innovation' can happen with BBCi? If you mean wasting more and more money on gimmicky 'interactive TV' services, then I hope they do get reigned in.
Quote:
New and better digital encryption, and in the future, the FREE internet archive
I thought the archive was actually a gross mis-quotation on the part of BBC News, and it will actually be limited to clips from a handful of popular shows? That doesn't justify however many more millions they will get out of this £5 price hike. And why is 'newer and better digital encryption' worth spending licence fee money on? The BBC by definition are free (except for the licence fee). Why would they bother researching encryption (and don't say 'to stop people in other countries watching' because they seem quite happy for that to happen - and have even spent god knows how much adapting the licence fee funded bbc.co.uk into 'UK' and 'World' versions)? And in any case afaik the BBC have never nor ever intend to develop encryption technologies.
Quote:
Surely, this alone justifies the extra money. What I mean is that eventually being able to freely access the entire BBC archive will be truely empowering, and offer long term savings for everyone.
What alone? You mean paying for BBC4, a channel which no one wants, apparant research into encryption which they will not use (and you have just decided they are doing), and 'access the entire BBC archive' just won't happen any time soon. And don't bleat on about value for money. It's all well and good to prattle on about how cheap the licence fee is, but the majority of people doing that are also people who earn so much that they don't notice it. To most people, the licence fee is a considerable burden, and ways of reducing it must be found, not year on year above inflation price rises.
SP
Sput
DAS posted:
Aston posted:
DAS posted:
I seriously cannot afford this as a poor student type. Although that's another debate entirely...
What? £5 over a whole year? That's 42p a month extra.
However, I DO believe that students SHOULD receive at least a 50% discount on TV licences. They'd probably actually make more money because as a studnet a lot of people I knew didn't bother getting one...
I cannot afford the licence fee full stop. Hence me saying it's another debate altogether: for some reason known only to "them", EACH student has to pay the FULL amount. Here endeth the student TV Licence debate.
And Aston, I wouldn't mind £5 in my pocket if you wouldn't mind - no matter how little it may seem.
Don't forget, returing it at the end of your academic year allows the 3ish months worth to be refunded to you, so at least there's some comfort!
Funnily enough I saw a detector van slowly moving down Oxford road here in Manchester, I thought "I wonder what they have in there that detects TV's".
My question was answered when it drove past some bright lights and the blacked out windows became useless. The answer is...
Seats. Lots of seats. It turns out that they're just very secretive looking mini-buses. Kind of a letdown for the technology buffs!
:-(
A former member
im a student and i have to work to support myself, and i pay my licence. any student can afford the licence, and if you dont want to pay it, then i know of a way that you can get out of paying it... don't have a television. if you plead poverty over ten quid a month then people arent going to take students seriously when they complain that they are poor. if you cant afford something, then you cant have it. simple as that.