Re: it's time for a change
Sorry, you didn't help, but instead appear to be terribly confused.
Of course Sky doesn't force you to subscribe to it. I never said it does. I was talking about its other income stream - the adverts which it carries - and who pays for those. Yes, believe it or not, Sky is such good value for money that it requires funding from both hefty subscriptions AND advertising.
Oh look - you do appear to have realised that - so why erect straw men to demolish? What was that you were saying earlier about moving goal posts? ;)
When you buy a product which is advertised on Sky (or substitute any other commercial broadcaster), you're forced to pay Sky a "tax" incorporated into the price of that product. You are paying Sky for programmes, whether you are watching them or not. Sound familiar? Sure, you can choose not to buy that product, but that restricts your freedom of choice and who's to say there's an alternative, especially as the free market will tend to equalise the prices of competing products?
Just watch any commercial TV for a while to see how advertising works without benefiting the consumer. A company will start to advertise a product. A competing company will panic and start to advertise their product too. These advertising wars happen again and again. Result: trebles all round for the broadcaster; prices go up for the consumer.
There are hundreds of things you have to pay for in your taxes which you don't consume. It just requires a bit more intelligence to be applied to realise this, rather than just kicking off at the licence fee all the time because it's so obvious what it funds.