In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
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?

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.

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?

It's not a subsidy by the BBC it is a reduction in their revenue. But if
they now don't like ti then reset the fee back to 2015, government pay
the £93m this year and renegotiate the deal.
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.

Conspiracy theory again. Just a simple case of government trying to
reduce cost of welfare and hence budget deficit.
No different from Trump trying to silence any opposition to him in the US.


--
bert