Licence Fee - Is it worth it?

stinga

I voted 'no, other reason'
Why?

I pay a full license fee and can't get all the stations.
Why should I pay for something I can't use?

We have no cable, no digital and live in a listed building so can't have satellite and even if we could have satellite, I would have to pay another fee and if I wanted to watch it more than one telly and would have to pay even more...

Reduce the price to those who can't get a digital service.

bigpat

Great poll this. I voted K (and for a change I seem to be siding with the majority)

I have no problem with funding the BBC - I just think it could be done far more efficiently. Ninety-nine-point-something of all UK households have TVs, so why bother with licences, detector vans, advertising etc.? Just fund it out of general taxation and that way we'd all pay less.

While I'm at it, they should also scrap road tax and put the tax on fuel instead. The more you drive the more you pay - and it would encourage us to use more fuel efficient cars. I agree there would have to be some way to alleviate the burden on remote rural dwellers.

I'm getting off my topic here! I LOVE the BBC, but hate the license. It *SHOULD* be publicly fuinded, but not by this ridiculous license fee.

Andy_Davies

I can't get all the BBC channels as we don't have digital, so why should I pay for them?

But this isn't my principle objection to the license fee - the whole country is about to go digital and this would be an ideal opportunity to move to a subscription model just like Sky's got. If you don't pay the subscription, you don't get the channels with none of this messing about fining people and and clogging up the courts system.

The BBC claim they're popular so why don't they put their money where there mouth is and opt for a method of payment that gives people the choice.

allean01

I don't care.

I don't have a licence. I keep telling the licence people I don't have a TV but they send me a letter about every 3 weeks.

It's your money they're wasting. Do they ever fine anyone?

Like others, I think a small fee for the radio would be worthwhile, or just stick it on the general taxes.

:j

Paul_Herring

allean01 wrote:

I don't have a licence. I keep telling the licence people I don't have a TV but they send me a letter about every 3 weeks.

It's your money they're wasting. Do they ever fine anyone?

I find ringing them up, and complaining about their threatening, obnoxious and odious letters[1] very theraputic. It also stops them for about 3 months (so they claim, it's been more than 6 at one of my addresses)



[1] Do you actually read them or just throw them away? On first reading, without looking very closely, they attempt to imply that they can fine you for not having a licence. TV or no TV.

kingshir

pin wrote:

Hell yes, for all the reasons above. Long live the Beeb.

It is worth the cost of the licence just to avoid all the f@#king adverts on all the other channels (and sky is the worst and I'm getting rid of that next month - hurrah :j have finally convinced hubby)

hughesapc

For about £130 I get access to all the main TV channels (including Freeview), which provides me far more programmes to watch than I have the time available. Yes, there are some sports progs on Sky I would like to watch, and may be some films, but for a further £300 - £500 pa (which seems to be what most people pay) - this represents awful value. In short, the licence fee is incredible value , not to mention the independent ethos of the BBC which I believe in.

Andy_R

Look at what you get for the licence fee and it is fantastic value. I would happily pay the £2.50 per week (that's what the licence fee is) so my young children can watch quality, educational TV with no adverts (CBeebies channel), never mind all the other fantastic TV, radio and web services on offer.

It always makes me laugh when people slate the licence fee, then they say they're very happy paying 3 or 4 times the licence fee to receive Sky. A lot of the channels (UKTV Gold etc) show programmes originally made by the BBC anyway, which would not exist without the licence fee.

The BBC is acknowledged the world over for making the best quality TV and radio in the WORLD! How typical that in the UK we don't recognise this. To me, the BBC is worth far more than the licence fee - it's just a shame that a lot of the tabloid newspapers have vested interests in opposing it - and a lot of people are naive enough to believe what they read in the papers.

Most people don't realise that newspapers are under no legal obligation to print the truth - they can print what they like. Enough said.

jaydog_2

Well in a day and age where advertising seems to rule beyond quality you could say the beeb offer a good service but in all fairness it seems like a tax for owning a bit of kit.

I would never in my life buy into all the SKY,Telewest,NTL and paytv rubbish, on the whole its all old imported and old bbc and itv shows these channels have purchased off them to show again and again and again well you get the picture.

I watch around 5 hours of TV a week, if it went tomorrow I would not miss it one bit, I have Freeview which offers the odd good thing and of course it is set to replace the old TV signal soon so we all need at least this to get any tv soon.
But I also have a second hand sky sat system for the extensive digital radio which is free, this running through my hi-fi amp and my discreet wireless speaker system allows me to listen to hi quality radio through out the house.

TV I can live without but music noooooooooo never.

Well the TV fee as a whole is OK value and I have no worries of having to pay for any pay tv, but like many I see it as a tax for having the kit not a fee for a good service.

Dartmoor_Dick

I'm amazed that nobody has asked why it is that the Government is insisting on switching-off analogue TV so quickly and forcing people to move to digital. Of course, the argument is that we have access to so many more top-quality programmes and can buy Freeview kit for next-to-nothing. But is the real reason that they are on the verge of getting rid of the licence fee in favour of forcing all programmes to go on a subscription service ? You see, with digital, you can control everything that your public views, whereas there's nothing you can do with analogue to prevent anyone viewing at any time whether-or-not they have a licence. All digital services are 'coded', and Freeview services are only 'free' because your set-top box effectively 'knows the code' for the free channels. But a tap of the keyboard at the TV control centre could block any or all channels to people who dont possess the appropriate subscription card plugged-in. So, how long will it be before there is no longer any such thing as 'free' channels and we all have to pay a subscription for the 5 basic channels as well as digital freeview too ? I predict that it'll happen within a year of completion of digital rollout. :shocked:
Oh ...... and by the way ....... when digital services change to HDTV (high definition widescreen), guess what ..... the coding is planned to change from MPEG2 to MPEG4 and so far as I know, there's not a single freeview set-top box avaialble presently that supports MPEG4, so everyone will have to 'upgrade' (i.e. spend yet more money) all over again. :doh: