Licence Fee - Is it worth it?

needstoknow

i personally think that we should not have to pay at all, advertising should be used, bbc 1 and 2 etc are very rairly watched in my house, if given the choice id never watch them and save 128 pounds a year! i believe they just voted to keep the tv licence 4 another 10 years, and who votes 4 it the fat cats who can afford it not the struggling low income familys! ps down with the royals! britian as a republic!

Paul_Herring

Dartmoor_!!!!!! wrote:

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.

Because the government wants to sell off the frequences. Fast. Next question?

reb1304

I think the the BBC offer poor value for money. I think a compromise would be to half their license fee or even give people an option of opting out of watching BBC1 & 2 and their digital channels, by either adding it to a package like sky or maybe offer pay per view for programs that might be worth watching (which there aren't too many of in my opinion). I think the BBC news reporting on major world issues has been really poor. I dont know at the moment as i dont watch it now because they never give both sides of the story and they are too left wing and have been anti christian in the past. Sports coverage is poor with half the coverage being on other channels. Repeats are on all the time. and decent comedy and drama is quite lacking. They have had there mandate extended which the government snuck through rather sharpish, when we should have had a referendum. On saying all of this I do think the radio is good, Planet Earth was excellent, but is it really worth £131.50 for every household every year ! where are they spending it all, as far as i can see there is huge room for improvement. What other broadcaster recieves massive amounts of money that you have to pay even if you dont use their service?!!! Since being hauled in, since the departure of Greg Dyke they may be marginally better.

reb1304

t8769 wrote:

If you look at the top dramas in the UK, most are US or Channel 4, as good as or better quality than the BBC.

Sure the radio's good, but then why pay all that money for a few stations.

As someone who's worked at the BBC, I know from my experience that the staff are largely Left wing, Guardian reading, Middle/Upper Class, Whites.

If you listen to Radio 4, BBC London or other stations you'll notice around 80% of jouirnalist guests come from 2 Left wing papers, the Guardian/Observer and Independant.

Listen to Radio 4 and count how many Independant journalists come on compared to the Telegraph. The Telegraph outsells the Indi about 8 to 1.

I've great respect for Left wing views, but don't like paying for a network that regards those working for the Mail or Telegraph as barely worth talking to.


The BBC is an excellent network, if you read the Guardian, dislike America and admire Castro. But for me and many others, it should just declare its politics and stop making people pay for it.

There was a time when people were forced to join a Union, depsite being Conservatives, and I'd like to stop paying for the BBC, as I don't want to support a Socialist network.

I think you have made a very good point why do we have to listen to biased views and pay for the pleasure! :T

Tripledrop

hughesapc wrote:

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.

The main point is though, that if you don't want to watch the films or sports or whatever on Sky, then you don't pay. You don't get taken to court or fined or hassled for this.

I do want to watch these things: I love Sky Sports, and would gladly pay the £42/month just for this, but my son loves the Disney channels, and my wife loves all the American health channels and comedies, so I feel it's well worth it.

I never watch BBC, whether it be the main 2 channels, the (pretty crappy) freeview channels or listen to the radio channels. Why should I have to pay for everybody elses viewing?! I cannot see any argument for me paying! WHY SHOULD I????

But as Im law abiding, I have to waste £130 a year on CRAP.

gringo_2

No the Licence Fee is a tax.
The BBC is an arm of the government. It relies on the Government for its revenue and as a consequence does not criticise it or question its actions. Note its lack of coverage of the Falluja bombardment or its report on Pinter's Lecture. I watch Channel for for better reporting and documentarys

Paul_Herring

gringo wrote:

No the Licence Fee is a tax.

Strictly speaking it's not a tax.

Or if you want to use the metaphor, it's a tax that can be easily avoided, as opposed to evaded. (Though reading the 'mailshots' that they send to residences without the paperwork it would appear that not having one is akin to tax evasion, even if you can legally avoid it.)

teddyco

I think the BBC has some good points, but it's just the way the license fee functions to collect the money. There's a reduced rate TV license for the blind? Ha Ha! Even a reduced rate for black and white, as if any dope still has a black and white telly? People actually go to jail for not paying to watch TV, and they have little vans that sit outside your house to spy on you and make sure you are not lying about not having a TV, how absolutely bizarre! When I try to explain this to my friends in America, they just look at me with this blank stare on their face like I am from Mars or something. They say things like "You Brits basically ruled a quarter of the world, founded the USA which is the most powerful country in the world, invented most of everything, taught everyone to speak your language, and you still throw folks in jail for not paying to watch their TV?"

I personally cannot even pick up BBC 1 and 2. I have a Philips Freeview box and for some reason, I pick up BBC fine on the normal aerial, but when the box is clicked on, it won't pick up BBC 1 and 2, weird?

I think it's time for the TV license to be put to death so the rest of the world will stop laughing at us!

Loadsabob

I voted No - Other

The "other" is that I am getting so fed-up with the hideous dumbing down by the BBC. It can't be denied, the majority of their programming is geared towards the lowest common denomenator, copy-cat and bandwagon TV, and the BBC new (Newsnight excepted) is a complete joke these days. It's not far off being as laughable as ITVs drums and standing news. Broadcast Journalist seem to have to graduate the school of moronic intonation to get a job in new these days!

But I pay my license, of course, because I do watch (and I probably watch a load of rubbish!). I would love to think I could be happy without a TV, but I grew up with it on all the time and I'm sad to say I often put it on for background noise, though really, when the house is silent, I really enjoy it!

But I love watching films, and I find it annoying that I would have to retain the license just to watch films at home.

AND, I have to say I am sick to deat of the BBC's adverts. The Radio Times one, fine, it's not that intrusive, but I am having Freeview forced down my throat by the BBC on a daily basis, and I'm paying a fortune not to be advertised to - any chance we can all claim our license fee back due to the volume of advertising now on BBC?

When I finally bite the bullet one day and get rid of the TV, I will NOT be sending a signed declaration to the licensing people, I will simply not buy a license. It's odd that its seen as so unlikely that someone could be without a TV. If they want to come and check, fine, but I'm not putting myself out to inform them I don't have a TV, in the same way I have never informed anyone that I don't have a car so won't be needing road tax, thank you.

HappySad

The argument of "i don't use it so why should I pay" does not wash with me. This argument has been used by those that I know to not pay for school for other people's children (when the person does not have any children) and even for things like the NHS (when another person always go private).

It is a public service that is there for everyone. I don't ever listern to the radio but my licience pays for the many others who do.

Did you know that over 90% of all children use BBC Bite size website for stage3 & GCSE revision... this sight is paid for from the licience. BBC.co.uk is the largest & most used sight in Europe. BBC world service provides a great & positive representation for our country..whenever I travel abroad people always comment on this. I always get comments about the quality of the BBC from people abroad.

Many programs are supported by very good online information service. BBC's ever expanding broadband is second to no one. Watch gardener's world or listen to yesterday's rado program.

I personally feel that the quality of programs a great. I watch parenting, lifestyle, house, documentaties, money type programmes and I see them as good.

Cannot comment on sports programs. Sounds like that this needs work to improve this.

If you want to go down the free for all & like the Americans you must have never been to the USA & watched their TV. Abolutely RUBBISH. 1000 rubbish programs with a few good & great programs. You can spend ages flicking though many many poor quality programs made to appeal to tha masses just to find that one good program. Yes their are some fantastic programs from tha states (we watch many of them here in the UK) but most of it are absolutrely rubbish.

Here is the UK we have good quality programs on the whole. I will choose not to watch the nature programs because this is not my interest; but I will say that the quality of these programs are fantastic. In the USA you would be interested in the program; but not watch it because of the poor condersending quality.

I believe that the UK quality (compared to other countries) is because to the "unfair" advantage the BBC has. It is able to take more chances & provide more services that is aimed to educate, inform & evertain as many people as possible.

P.s
I do not want my child to watch children's programmes & to be repeated advertised to about junk food..BBC no adverts.