I suggest the law making anyone owning a device capable of receiving BBC tv signals (even if the device cant actually receive the signals in reality*) needing a tv licence be abolished. its unbelievable to think you can still ultimately go to prison for not paying your licence fee.
Many, many people never or hardly ever watch the BBC and would gladly never watch it again if they were saving the £145 a year. Why does all the money still go to only the BBC anyway?
I pay less for all the hundreds of other channels I get on Sky than I do for the four BBC channels – which I dont watch!
Why cant we at least be given a choice of whether to receive BBC channels or not? Technology nowadays could surely produce devices that block the BBC and so we would not have to buy a licence. When I buy a microwave i dont have to buy a licence from Birds Eye to subsidise them making meals which I may never, ever eat! You get me?
I read somewhere that the BBC would only need about 20 minutes of advertising a DAY to be able to do away with the licence fee altogether so why not do this?
* An example: A man who bought a video recorder/player to use in a lead lined submarine (totally incapalbe of receiving any tv signals) to watch videos was taken to court for not owning a licence.
Why is this idea important?
The law was introduced in 1946 when there were only TWO tv channels and is totally outdated and irrelevant to the way tv channels are run nowadays.
it is also now very unfair and the public should not be charged for a service they may well never use. If the law must remain then it should be administered fairly and people should be given a choice of whether they want to view BBC channels or not.