'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion

I haven't voted because I'm not sure what to vote.
I like the BBC for their nature documentaries and appreciate the way the programs are laid out with no need to allow for ad breaks and the inevitable recap which comes after ( like discovery and national geographic channels for example).
BUT I don't think it should be a mandatory "if you want to watch tv at all you must pay even if you will never use BBC channels" heavy handed approach. I think it's this that gets people's backs up.
If I want to watch Sky1 I pay Sky or Virgin for the privilege, I don't pay for Sky sports because I don't want to watch it, and Sky don't make me pay for it even though I want to watch their other channels so this is a better approach. The problem with this is that if it was somehow optional to pay for BBC then there might not be enough funding for the super documentaries they are renowned for, so I don't really know what the answer is. Maybe a minimal fee for everyone with a larger fee for those who want to access their other channels or their ondemand service which you can access even if you've not paid your fee??

I watch Sky to be honest, I would say probably 95% of the time, I also dont listen to BBC radio. My prefered option would be for BBC to be pay per view.

the bbc is superb, but its lost a lot of edge after the woss/brand joke

£100 is enough, especially as it raises good money from selling DVDs and programs to overseas


mind you £500 a year would be a bargain if it meant you never had to watch ITV, SKY1, C5 and Virgin 1

It is value in my opinion. As robin banks says 40p a day for now 24 hour access to news, information and entertainment. Plus Susannah Reid.



Worth 40p of anyone's dosh

I'm happy to pay the licence fee to be free of ads. They destroy programmes on other channels. Not everything on the BBC is to my taste, and some of it is awful, but the documentaries on BBC 2 & 4 are well worth paying for. The website is also outstanding. Leave it alone!