All posts by Briantist
Below are all of Briantist's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
trevorjharris: And to answer your question directly, yes, you are "would be subsidising other peoples viewing ", that is correct.
Because only the fictional world of Anne Rand does everyone pay directly for everything.
Sometimes it is better for society as a whole for the state to intervene and use it's powers to benefit the majority of citizens. Given that everything shows that your position is one of about 2%, it is your right and duty to moan about the injustice to yourself and ignore the greater good.
There are loads of things I pay taxes for that I'm never going to personally benefit from: everything from Maternity Hospitals to the Trident submarine system.
You don't need to read much history - and I'm going to guess that trevorjharris doesn't read any history - to learn that collective action by a protective nominally democratic state is the best possible route to a good life.
If trevorjharris claims to wish to live in the jungle, I'm not sure how long he would really last.
| link to this comment |
Rob: If the BBC became a subscription service then you would most likely have the first peice of basic hardware provided for free, but you would have to self-fund the rest.
The current situation for TV subscription is on a per-household basis: however Sky do charge a "multi room" fee of £10 a month for each extra set-top box.
| link to this comment |
Rob: "PVR's having Cloud drive" is a nice idea, but currently it is regarded as "illegal" as it falls under copyright laws that outlaw piracy,.
No, really.
| link to this comment |
James: Thanks. I'm glad you like them.
I've been looking at the alternatives to the TVL in more detail, starting today BBC 2017: Which of these 14 options is best to collect 4 billion quid a year? | BBC 2017 | ukfree.tv - 11 years of independent, free digital TV advice
| link to this comment |
trevorjharris: no. There are clearly 10 principles in my list.
I left out advertising as I've covered that elsewhere.
| link to this comment |
Adrian: Not yet. I wouldn't expect there to be anything running until com7 is full.
| link to this comment |
Martin Baines: Thanks, I am very pleased to hear that you found them in the spirit that I had intended.
The "small c" I was going for was "comprehensible": I had originally planned some hybrid articles, but I thought it made it difficult to understand what the point was.
I did leave out some of the more outlandish ideas: for example, the new BBC plc being so cash rich that it did a hostile takeover of the satellite broadcaster to become BBCSkyB!
I did mention the HBO model in the BBC plc, 2017. The new CEO decides between ITV and HBO | BBC 2017 | ukfree.tv - 11 years of independent, free digital TV advice article.
The issue I have with the "a criminal (or even civil) sanction really necessary" point is true for so many things. This includes things from the likes of non-payment of Council Tax payments to prostitution and drug possession.
The problem is that "fair play" is as much in the character of the British people as its antithesis "blagging". We do have a rather bankrupt political process that promises "everyone can have more services for less taxes", despite all the evidence to the contrary.
By putting forward these articles I am not advocating any of them. I'm just trying to avoid the common "knee jerk" reactions by trying to think them through logically.
The only point I really think I have made a decision on is that the public should decide between keeping the over-expensive regional news networks or having better programmes over more genre-based channels.
MARKET INTERVENTION: SKY AND OPENREACH
I went to one of those Ofcom panels Home - Communications Consumer Panel events and I asked that very question to the floor.
It fell on stony ground: I suspect that Sky's people have kept the idea that they are a "plucky upstart" in important people's minds.
| link to this comment |
Charles Stuart: If defense of giving the Council Tax a "7" score for Tax Progressiveness it gets that score because it is better than the current per-household fee, which makes no account whatsoever of the household's wealth.
Thus "Band A" might pay £6 a month, "Band D" £12 and "Band H" say £24 a month, with an inbetween scale.
It's not a perfect indication of the wealth of the household (that would get a "9") but it is better than a "poll tax" (where every person pays the same, regardless) which would have got a low score.
The scale I have used is "5"=current system.
| link to this comment |
trevorjharris: I just read your comment at the gym and I've been chucking to myself all the way back home.
The scoring system isn't ridiculous: it just takes in all your objections and assigns them a score against different means of collection.
The reason you would want to weight the responses is that you a have a single view the something that has worked for the last 90 years is suddenly a "mad way to fund the BBC".
As for "There is little to distinguish the output of the BBC from any other television company", there is one: it doesn't show adverts for 16 minutes or more an hour. To some people, but not you of course, that is
Now, if you're going to keep on claiming that the "TV licence is not fit for purpose" tell me what my ten criteria should be and explain a weighting system that does not beligh prejudice!
| link to this comment |
Wednesday 26 March 2014 5:45AM
trevorjharris: I find it very strange that you come out with such childish arguments, to be honest.
I'm finding it hard to actually understand your position.
Do you object to all taxation and wish yourself (and everyone else) to pay for everything directly?
I'm guessing you don't like paying for other people's children to be educated, or for sick people outside your family to not be cured?
Given your obviously envious ("BBC fats cats") comments, this suggests to me that you're not rich enough to take the personal risk and have only private schooling, healthcare for yourself.