Is the TV Licence fee worth it? Poll results/discussion

Defiant wrote: »

Already done it but you chose to ignore it remember.

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

I meant a valid and accurate demonstration.

Schwade wrote: »

I am not discussing whether ITV is free since it is paid by for advertising generated by many factors (one being a full pass through by Tesco among others). So it is not "FREE".

I don't fault your argument, really Schwade.

The problem is that this simply isn't a like-with-like comparison. There is no 'state-run newspaper' which we can compare it to.

The argument is simply the one about any centrally-provided resource

- you want private health care, you still have to pay the NHS
- you want private schooling, you still have to pay for state schools
- you live on a private road, you still have to pay road fund licenc

Defiant wrote: »

And I've said that's economics is something you wish to ignore. You only have to look at tesco to see that advertising can keep our costs down due to the advertising carried out which in turn help to reduce prices (bulk buying).




The BBC is huge and so has employee's all over the world but then I don't need to tell you that do I



Hmm, So you just happen to have a house in the UK now and the house needs a BBC TV Licence :rotfl:

For education purposes I'll explain to you that the BBC TV Licence is only required in the UK if you watch/recieve "live" transmissions and not for a house :rolleyes:

I'm afraid I have to get back to work, Defiant. I sadly don't work for the BBC because it would appear that in your bizarre world that if I did I would be on a marvellous gravy train. Sadly I'm not and I work for a different company who need me to do some real work.

I do need a licence for my house in the UK because my wife and daughter have been living in it And I'm off back to the UK on Saturday anyway.

On the issue of advertising, I'm afraid that - not working in the industry - I don't know the figures. I'm suspecting that, as you seem to be a little more interested in the matter than me, you might have links to something which demonstates quite clearly how ITV is free. I'd be genuinely interested to see them.

magyar wrote: »

I don't fault your argument, really Schwade.

The problem is that this simply isn't a like-with-like comparison. There is no 'state-run newspaper' which we can compare it to.

To make it more like-with-like - think about this.

1. We were to have a state-run newspaper(tv), BBC Mirror(BBC) funded by an annual fee(licence).
2. You want to read(watch) the Financial Times(Sky). You pay for it. The guy(TVL) looks at you and say, "have you also paid your annual fee(license) to BBC Mirror (BBC)? Because to read(watch) any newspapers(tv) in the UK, you need to pay BBC Mirror(BBC) first".

Isn't that just weird? Why is there a requisite to pay a fee to BBC Mirror(BBC) just to read(watch) something else?

The fee has nothing to do with the FT. The fee is 100% for BBC Mirror to maintain itself while competing in the newspaper market.

The argument is simply the one about any centrally-provided resource

- you want private health care, you still have to pay the NHS
- you want private schooling, you still have to pay for state schools
- you live on a private road, you still have to pay road fund licenc

This is the final argument. State funding. These examples are very good (not sure on 3rd). TBH, if I pay private health, and private education (not that I have the money!), I shouldn't be paying for public service.

Unfortunately, I need to so that people less well off has the NHS and education.

Now, by analogy, I am paying for BBC so that less well people can watch it. But is this really the case? No, because poor people pay as well. In fact, it is worse for them. Instead of £134 on other things, they need to pay BBC.

That leads to 2nd Q:

Why does TV media need to be a public service (not print media)??
Why doesn't provisions of food (i.e. supermarkets) need to be a public service??
Why doesn't money (i.e. retail banks) need to be a public service??

Because they work without state funding. To me, BBC is entertainment - it has sports, drama, etc. It is not a state interest required for state funding.

Would education and health work without state funding? Maybe not since I have never seen anywhere in the world where education/health can be subsidised by advertising. If not advertising, then it will be subscriber based which comes back to the poor issue.

However, if education/health does work via advertising/subscriber based, I am sure I would be 100% advocating to ask government to stop subsidising such areas since it works fine within the normal consumer markets.