"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
BBC agreed to it in return for index linked licence fee and the
covering
of iplayer.

BBC were strong armed into it

I suspect that they didn't fully realise the effect that it had on their
income

They did at the time. But come the time for reviewing the licence fee,
surely that is up for negotiation too?

There is never any chance at all that the BBC will extract fee increases
above inflation from this process (which would be needed to make up any
shortfall from elsewhere)

It's a tough enough job getting inflation increases agreed

Personally, I resent the idea that I should subsidise (though my license
payments), "family in main home, granny in a granny annex" getting a
free TV licence. (yes, it does work like that!)

Of course. But many see the licence as just another tax, rather than one
which is ring fenced to a specific purpose.

Who cares, let's call it a tax

I'd still resent some people, unjustifiably, not having to pay that tax

and if putting in a very simple means test to avoid that (and similar)
abuse of the system causes a number of others who might more reasonably
qualify not to do so, then so be it. HMG should have solved that
problem before foisting the concession onto the BBC.

I'll say it again. If it is up to the BBC to subsidise anyone for whatever
reason, why not the energy and telephone etc companies too?

I'm not disagreeing with you

Of course the answer is simple. This government hates the idea of the BBC
not being an organ of government and doing what it tells them to.

They'll miss it when it's gone (which it will if the nonsense idea of
subscription model ever gets passed)