The compulsory payment of the TV licence to fund the BBC is unfair and unjust, and gives this corporation an unfair and 'privileged' position against its market competitors who have to rely on other means for funding.

Why is this idea important?

With so much choice of TV through satellite and cable services that require yearly/monthly subscription charges for the services customers want, having to fund this one corporation on top of this should not be allowed to continue.  If I want to subscribe to receive the sports channels on Sky, for example, I choose to pay more for these.  Likewise, if I choose not to receive these channels, I do not include them in my subscription charge so I don't receive them.  With the technology that is available today, if I don't want to pay for the BBC channels, I should have the choice not to(!) and subsequently not receive them.  No other compulsory funding of any other corporation would be tolerated, so why should this?  Especially after the recent headlines about how much they are paying their top stars (£54m in total only for the top stars), and yet another increase in the fee to £145.

Tagged with: |

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.