Quote:
Originally Posted by accyman
we live in an age where we have a choice of hundreds of TV channels that get by on their own it is ridiculous that one company especially a company with the BBC's track record be given the special treatment it is
|
yes, we do. But my understanding is that we pay the licence to receive a radio/TV signal from anyone who broadcasts.....not that we pay the licence fee for just the BBC.
The licence fee has become politicised...it is something that politicians fight and argue over. Much of this is because it has not moved with the technology. It has not evolved.
I am sure that if you drive on the roads you pay road tax.....this money is not spent on the roads...it just goes into government coffers.
If you thought that all companies who broadcast on the airwaves would that make you feel happier to pay it?
If they changed the name of it from TV licence to something like 'licence to receive Broadcasts' would that make you feel better about it. And again, I am just asking the question - not being 'fly' or smart alecky.
I am sure much of the furore about the TV licence is really that people are anti BBC....and that is their right.......but as far as I am aware the TV licence is to receive broadcasts from ANY broadcaster.
Now I am sure that if I am wrong in this concept there will be someone along to tell me that it is not so.
That the licence fee funds the BBC and no other broadcaster is a totally different matter.