It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by stumason
I actually work at Arqiva. As for the fee, every channel will be broadcast digitally soon so there is no reason why those channels that benafit from funding from the license fee could not go encrypted and become subscription only. We are supposed to live in a society of freedom of speech yet we are forced by law to pay for propaganda to be broadcast into our home when it could easily be changed to a lifestyle choice. ]]I also think that the government invades my privacy as any time I buy a new TV or reciever set or subscribe to an subscription TV platform they force the retailer by law to share my details. I think I'd have a good case against them should they use that evidence in court.
Of course the judges would be biased anyway and would never let anybody beat the license fee in court, they will have orders from high above to make it not happen.
Originally posted by scotsdavy1
when you buy a new tv dont give them at the shop your real address because they inform the tv licence vultures for every one sold which is a fact. then they check to see if the property has a licence.
Originally posted by JonoEnglish
To be fair, the licence fee, over a year isn't that expensive. By finding loopholes and refusing to pay, you push the cost up for everyone else.
I find it hard to believe the majority of those who don't pay, won't watch the channels live throughout the year because they haven't paid for the licence, or use any BBC service.