Licence Fee - Is it worth it?

Andy_Davies

5limJim wrote:

ITV is wiping out any trace of regional identity, and I cant recall a drama I watched on there for ages.

For all the services the BBC provides, ad-free, I personally find it good value for money... But hey, thats the best thing we're all entitled to our opinions, 1 person may like it, another might not!!

ITV's regional identity is going because it's being squeezed by the BBC who can afford compete with them on an uncommercial basis due to the license fee.

Yep we're all entitled to out opinions by why do the defenders of the BBC never say "OK let's go for the subscription model where those who think the BBC is worth paying for pay for it and the rest of us can choose not to"?

Paul_Herring

Andy_Davies wrote:

why do the defenders of the BBC never say "OK let's go for the subscription model where those who think the BBC is worth paying for pay for it and the rest of us can choose not to"?

Erm - because they think they know what would happen if they did go down that route?

t8769

>preaching polarised views which people believe!!!

Listen to Radio 4 and count how many journalists from the Left wing papers are invited on air, compared to those on Right wing papers.

I'd say its about 10 to 1 for the Left.

Talk about evangelical, axe-grinding, bias presenters and bias guests.

Thank goodness for State funded Radio.

Dan29

Willsnarf1983 wrote:

personally i don't mind paying it but i wish they would stop broadcasting abroad it is NOT value for money to do this and for the little ex pats that bugggered of from this wonderful country they obv don't like why give them this luxery!

I don't know what you mean by "broadcasting abroad" but the BBC doesn't provide any services overseas without them being paid for in some way other than by the licence fee.

IanWorthington

Having just returned from many years in that land of right-wing broadcasting and program-free advertising, the USA, I *love* the BBC. Even at 131.50 pa.

What I do NOT love so much was that the first bill to hit my doormat was from the Panzer division of the TV Licensing authority, noting that I appear to have been at my new address for all of 10 minutes and as I hadn't bought a TV License yet it was there intention to send round the boys to turn over my house and find the TV I was clearly using illegally.

Well guys, I'm sorry: Having been away for 8 years I *do* have one or other higher priorities than finding the TV and installing it. And I *do*, very strongly, object to this guilty until proven innocent approach: last time I checked it was still not a legal requirement to own and use a TV. Do we really have to adopt these bullying tactics?

Regretfully the boys with the knuckle-dusters failed to turn up so I could bar them from entry without a search warrant before my wife insisted I install the TV, so I'm now with license.

But I can't help thinking that if the Beeb want to get more money, why waste so much of what we pay on this grossly inefficient, and public-irritating method of revenue collection? How many people *does* the TVLA employee? What does it *really* cost? Why not just include it in something that's efficient to collect, such as PAYE or VAT, and be done with it?

Ian
...

Dread

Then the Beeb can afford compete in the Football, Rugby, Motor racing, Cricket etc. etc. stakes against Sky. For £260 per year, £21 per month for TV, Radio, Web resources and an unbiased news service that is the envy of the world when a modest Sky package costs that and more and news is simply recycled American nonsense.

The BBC is a national treasure that we can't afford to lose and of course it ought to be transparant, publishing employees salaries etc. but don't expect the best DJ's, presenters and celebrities to come cheap, quality costs money and the BBC is quality. I don't really want to degenerate further into American soap's, everything funded by companies that the broadcasters have to appease with political slants included in their broadcasts.

We are all contributing to our cultural and philosophical independence here and I'm sorry but if someone on a low income has to pay for a TV licence then thats how it has to be, they gain the same benefits as the wealthy regardless of how many TV's are in the house, they all broadcast the same thing. The hardware is not the issue it's the service thats being paid for.

IanWorthington

Totally agree Dread.

I don't have children, but have to pay taxes for public education; some folks don't drive, but have to pay taxes towards road maintenance; some choose to have private health policies but still may towards the NHS, etc etc

It all comes down to what kind of society do we want to live in. I happen to think that public education, transport, and health are all good things, and living in the USA has only confirmed in my mind that a "winner takes all" society is not one I'm comfortable living in.

And a decent public broadcasting system doing the quality stuff that the comercial channels wouldn't touch with a barge pole *is* part of the society I'm comfortable living in.

But lets collect it efficiently. The TVLA isn't. VAT or PAYE would less affect the poor and more affect the wealth. What's wrong with that?

Ian
...

anita1

So if the Tv lisence is a fair request from the bbc, Why can it not be a fair to request that we do not pay for the lisence as we dont want to watch the bbc.
How about a pay as you go scheme , you only pay for the bbc that you watch,
That to me is fair For eveybody

pandapone

easy322000 wrote:

There's some good points here, the best being that the BBC is a service that hopefully appeals to everybody in some way.

The BBC is more than just telly, and the licence fee covers many outlets.

Can those that say 'I never watch the BBC' honestly say hand on heart that they never watch ANY BBC channels, nor any BBC programmes on other platforms (like the Discovery channel) or listen to BBC radio or occasionally look at BBC online?

Thanks to Mrs Thatcher's 'me' generation, the notion that one should pay something for the greater good has become an alien concept. I don't smoke, but I still pay national insurance contributions to fund the NHS to pay for operations on those that do. But if I'm run over by a bus, I'll be repaired for 'free', also unlike our American cousins.
That's the swings and roundabouts of a 'tax'..

Taken over a whole year, the BBC represents incredible value for money. There is simply no other service in the world to match it. And it is incredibly shortsighted to view it as a burden. One simply has to be a little more broadminded and holistic about it. Sometimes not having a choice can be a good thing - if you let kids eat what they like, they'd choose ice cream every day - the point of the BBC is that it tries very hard to produce something that will appeal to everyone. Not an easy task.

The FA Cup...Planet Earth...Doctor Who...Little Britain...CBeebies...Terry Wogan...Life on Mars...

So you joined moneysavingexpert in April 2006 and this and your only other post since joining is on the BBC licence fee discussion and in both posts you are strongly in favour of the licience fee. Would you be connected with the BBC in any way perchance?

anniecave

I don't have a TV so I don't have to pay for the TV licence. Easy!