News reports suggest the licence fee is due to increase in April:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100

"The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."

Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
arrangement for the BBC? Should it be funded in a different way?

On 04/12/2023 in message <lvfrmitsp9730mf9rpi2d5gg265dtcnen2@4ax.com>
Scott wrote:

>News reports suggest the licence fee is due to increase in April:
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100
>
>"The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
>due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
>expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
>looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."
>
>Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
>arrangement for the BBC? Should it be funded in a different way?

I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced to
pay a licence fee.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Are you confused about gender?
Try milking a bull, you'll learn real quick.

On 04/12/2023 12:08 pm, Scott wrote:
> News reports suggest the licence fee is due to increase in April:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100
>
> "The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
> due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
> expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
> looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."
>
> Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
> arrangement for the BBC?

It would be, if watching and paying for the BBC were something one could
choose to do or not to do.

> Should it be funded in a different way?

It should. It should be encrypted and available only to subscribers at
whatever subscription rate the market will stand. But it has a lot of
competition.

On 04/12/2023 02:12 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:

> On 04/12/2023 Scott wrote:
>
>> News reports suggest the licence fee is due to increase in April:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100
>
>> "The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
>> due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
>> expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
>> looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."
>>
>> Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
>> arrangement for the BBC? Should it be funded in a different way?
>
> I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
> either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced to
> pay a licence fee.

Stand by for the usual red herrings:

(A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...

(B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...

(C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you shop
at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...

On 04/12/2023 14:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 04/12/2023 in message <lvfrmitsp9730mf9rpi2d5gg265dtcnen2@4ax.com>
> Scott wrote:
>
>> News reports suggest the licence fee is due to increase in April:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100
>>
>> "The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
>> due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
>> expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
>> looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."
>>
>> Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
>> arrangement for the BBC? Should it be funded in a different way?
>
> I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
> either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced to
> pay a licence fee.

If you watch it, though, you'll be paying one way or another, either
through that subscription fee or increased price of the goods
advertised. Or, more than likely, both. You won't save much if
anything at all unless you abandon the BBC altogether.

On 04/12/2023 03:13 pm, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 04/12/2023 14:12, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 04/12/2023 in message <lvfrmitsp9730mf9rpi2d5gg265dtcnen2@4ax.com>
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>>> News reports suggest the licence fee is due to increase in April:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67610100
>>>
>>> "The licence fee has been frozen for the last two years at £159 but is
>>> due to rise in April in line with inflation ... It's currently
>>> expected to increase to £173.30 a year, but Ms Frazer said she was
>>> looking at which measure of inflation to use to calculate the rise."
>>>
>>> Do the people think a flat-rate licence fee remains a suitable funding
>>> arrangement for the BBC? Should it be funded in a different way?
>>
>> I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
>> either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced
>> to pay a licence fee.
>
> If you watch it, though, you'll be paying one way or another, either
> through that subscription fee or increased price of the goods
> advertised.  Or, more than likely, both.  You won't save much if
> anything at all unless you abandon the BBC altogether.

Please explain how the prices of the goods I buy will increase if I
don't subscribe to and watch BBC, but won't if I do.

I know that Watchdog was a good consumer programme in its day, but...

On 04/12/2023 in message <kt68l6FagaqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:

>>I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
>>either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced to
>>pay a licence fee.
>
>If you watch it, though, you'll be paying one way or another, either
>through that subscription fee or increased price of the goods advertised.
>Or, more than likely, both. You won't save much if anything at all unless
>you abandon the BBC altogether.

I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough but its
pro-Israel bias finished me. I pay to watch other channels via adverts and
one streaming service. I do switch streaming services as digital rights
move around.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Though no-one can go back and make a new start, everyone can start from
now and make a new ending.

On 04/12/2023 15:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 04/12/2023 in message <kt68l6FagaqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
> wrote:
>
>>> I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
>>> either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced
>>> to pay a licence fee.
>>
>> If you watch it, though, you'll be paying one way or another, either
>> through that subscription fee or increased price of the goods
>> advertised. Or, more than likely, both.  You won't save much if
>> anything at all unless you abandon the BBC altogether.
>
> I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough but its
> pro-Israel bias finished me. I pay to watch other channels via adverts
> and one streaming service. I do switch streaming services as digital
> rights move around.

Since you need a TV licence to watch anything broadcast live, you're not
saving any money by casting it off though.

On 04/12/2023 14:45, JNugent wrote:
> Stand by for the usual red herrings:
>
> (A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
>
> (B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
>
> (C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you shop
> at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...

Why are they red herrings?

It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.

But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising Tax
which probably costs you more.

On 04/12/2023 in message <kt6dh4FagaqU3@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
wrote:

>On 04/12/2023 15:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 04/12/2023 in message <kt68l6FagaqU2@mid.individual.net> Norman Wells
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>I think it should be cast adrift to stand on its own two feet, it can
>>>>either offer subscriptions of take adverts but we shouldn't be forced to
>>>>pay a licence fee.
>>>
>>>If you watch it, though, you'll be paying one way or another, either
>>>through that subscription fee or increased price of the goods advertised.
>>>Or, more than likely, both.  You won't save much if anything at all
>>>unless you abandon the BBC altogether.
>>
>>I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough but its
>>pro-Israel bias finished me. I pay to watch other channels via adverts
>>and one streaming service. I do switch streaming services as digital
>>rights move around.
>
>Since you need a TV licence to watch anything broadcast live, you're not
>saving any money by casting it off though.

But I will if we drop the licence fee.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There are 3 types of people in this world. Those who can count, and those
who can't.

On 04/12/2023 15:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is bad enough but its
> pro-Israel bias finished me.

Pro-Israel?

It seemed to be supporters of the HAMAS terrorists every time I looked
at news programmes.

On 04/12/2023 18:42, JMB99 wrote:
> On 04/12/2023 15:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>> I have already cast it adrift, its left wing bias is
.... a figment of your imagination, see below ...

>> but
>> its pro-Israel bias finished me.
>
> Pro-Israel?
>
> It seemed to be supporters of the HAMAS terrorists every time I looked
> at news programmes.

I can't comment about the pro-Israel bias, because I haven't been
watching BBC News enough since the current bout of the long-running
Palestinian-Israeli conflict began, but the fact that you can find room
to think the exact opposite to Jeff probably shows that they're
somewhere in the middle, as they should be.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 04/12/2023 04:43 pm, JMB99 wrote:

> On 04/12/2023 14:45, JNugent wrote:

>> Stand by for the usual red herrings:
>>
>> (A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
>>
>> (B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
>>
>> (C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you
>> shop at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
>
>
> Why are they red herrings?

Because they're simple diversionary tactics.
>
> It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
> charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.

There's one there straight away (my (B) above).

What has subscription to do with it? Consumers can subscribe if they
like, but there must be a hundred channels on Freeview (aside from the
five or six BBC channels). And there are plenty of other free sources
available by streaming (FreeVee, for instance).

> But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising Tax
> which probably costs you more.

Ah yes, listed by me at (C). Do you actually know anything about how
businesses are run and what role is played by advertising?

I may have a supplementary question to put after your answer has been given.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 04/12/2023 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>> Stand by for the usual red herrings:
>>
>> (A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
>>
>> (B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
>>
>> (C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you shop
>> at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
>
>
>Why are they red herrings?
>
>It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
>charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
>
>But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising Tax
>which probably costs you more.
>

Murdochvision? What is that?

--
brightside S9

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
>charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.

The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up. Explain
how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for Amazon Prime.

Rod.

On 05/12/2023 08:35 am, BrightsideS9 wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/2023 14:45, JNugent wrote:
>>> Stand by for the usual red herrings:
>>>
>>> (A) the fee is for a licence to watch TV, not for the BBC...
>>>
>>> (B) It only costs tuppence-ha'penny a month and for that you get...
>>>
>>> (C) Why object to paying for the BBC, you pay for ITV, etc when you shop
>>> at the supermarket and you pay for Murdochvision...
>>
>>
>> Why are they red herrings?
>>
>> It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
>> charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
>>
>> But you will find it very difficult to avoid paying the Advertising Tax
>> which probably costs you more.
>>
>
> Murdochvision? What is that?

Guardian-speak for Sky television.

[Yes, I do know that Sky has been sold to Disney or someone.]

On 05/12/2023 08:49 am, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:43:01 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> It is quite a trivial amount when compared to what subscription systems
>> charge and yet still manages to produce good programmes.
>
> The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up. Explain
> how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for Amazon Prime.

Or, indeed, when compared to the £0.00 one can pay to receive a great
number of free channels and services (some provided by Amazon Prime) via
an Amazon Fire Stick.

On 05/12/2023 08:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up. Explain
> how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for Amazon Prime.

Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery service,
I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything of interest so
did not bother.

On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 12:06:11 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 05/12/2023 08:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up. Explain
>> how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for Amazon Prime.
>
>
>Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
>forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery service,
>I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything of interest so
>did not bother.

Other streaming services are available. Some of them require
subscription fees and some don't. Some of them show programmes with
adverts but offer the option of paying a subscription to watch them
without the adverts if you prefer. It's up to you. Most of of the ones
that do require a subscription cost less than the BBC licence.

And Amazon, Netflix, ITVX, All4 and the like will not send threatening
letters demanding payment if you don't want their services.

Rod.

In article <ukn3ni$52a5$1@dont-email.me>,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 08:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> > The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up.
> > Explain how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for
> > Amazon Prime.

> Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
> forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery
> service, I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything
> of interest so did not bother.

Unpack that: You wanted the delivery service and were prepared to pay
for it. Then you found out there was some free stuff which you didn't
like so you abandoned the whole idea.

Fair enough but odd reasoning. But at least you had the option to not
bother without being limited on other options with the threat of
prosecution.

Not at all like not liking tomatoes and going to the shops to buy
some potatoes but you're told that before you can buy potatoes you
must by law buy the tomatoes you don't like. Otherwise you'll find
yourself in court.

Bob.

On 05/12/2023 in message <5b0e019928bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob Latham
wrote:

>Not at all like not liking tomatoes and going to the shops to buy
>some potatoes but you're told that before you can buy potatoes you
>must by law buy the tomatoes you don't like. Otherwise you'll find
>yourself in court.

What about straight bananas?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
This joke was so funny when I heard it for the first time I fell of my
dinosaur.

In article <xn0oa831n7vaes001@news.individual.net>,
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 in message <5b0e019928bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob Latham
> wrote:

> >Not at all like not liking tomatoes and going to the shops to buy
> >some potatoes but you're told that before you can buy potatoes you
> >must by law buy the tomatoes you don't like. Otherwise you'll find
> >yourself in court.

> What about straight bananas?

I have nothing against gay or straight bananas. Frankly I'm shocked
that you raise the issue, let bananas live as they wish I say.

Bob.

On 05/12/2023 in message <5b0e05ca7fbob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob Latham
wrote:

>In article <xn0oa831n7vaes001@news.individual.net>,
> Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
>>On 05/12/2023 in message <5b0e019928bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob Latham
>>wrote:
>
>>>Not at all like not liking tomatoes and going to the shops to buy
>>>some potatoes but you're told that before you can buy potatoes you
>>>must by law buy the tomatoes you don't like. Otherwise you'll find
>>>yourself in court.
>
>>What about straight bananas?
>
>I have nothing against gay or straight bananas. Frankly I'm shocked
>that you raise the issue, let bananas live as they wish I say.
>
>Bob.

:-)

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The fact that there's a highway to hell and only a stairway to heaven says
a lot about anticipated traffic numbers.

On 05/12/2023 13:01, Bob Latham wrote:
> Unpack that: You wanted the delivery service and were prepared to pay
> for it. Then you found out there was some free stuff which you didn't
> like so you abandoned the whole idea.

From what I remember they increased the price to include the TV service.

Some time ago and I rarely use Amazon, very wary of the dodgy fake items
they allow to be sold in the market place(?) so prefer to use reliable
dealers even if they cost more. I buy my books from our excellent local
bookshop or direct from the published sometimes.

On 05/12/2023 12:06 pm, JMB99 wrote:

> On 05/12/2023 08:49, Roderick Stewart wrote:

>> The BBC licence is is £13.25 per month, and it's due to go up. Explain
>> how this is trivial compared to the £8.99 I pay for Amazon Prime.

> Some time I ago I was thinking of paying for Amazon Prime then they
> forced you to have their TV service if you wanted the delivery service,
> I looked at what was on Prime TV and did not see anything of interest so
> did not bother.

Out of interest, how did you look at it if you haven't got it?