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

lucylucky

Canute wrote: »

The BBC collects the licence fee ONLY in the UK. It broadcasts elsewhere in the world for free - or are we paying for that as well? My main objection is purely personal - I pay the fee BUT I am unable to receive the programmes in Europe - not even on bbciplayer - apart from radio. I understand that the EU has declared that residents should be able to access their own country's TV channels. It is a fact that no one has to pay a licence fee to watch previous live re-broadcasts. Question - does that include all the repeats? The legislation concerning the licence fee and the BBC needs changed. Surely as things stand at present when on the European mainland access to the programmes via the internet should just be a matter of logging in with your licence fee serial number on iplayer or is that too simple!

Interesting.. Wonder how that is supposed to work?
Have you a link I can follow up on please?

DAnnymagic13

Well they have started to have advertising on their website so it is only a matter of time before they start introducing it to some of the lesser listened to/watched channels and then it will creep up on the mainstream ones.

If they have this advertising on their website Top right hand corner of their homepage) then they should not receive any licence fee money as well.

The licence fee is an outdated system, I have to pay for things I don't want to watch or listen to. They should have a similar subscription service to sky where you can pay for the channels radio that you want.

Paul_Herring

Canute wrote: »

It broadcasts elsewhere in the world for free - or are we paying for that as well?

BBC WorldWide is a commercial organisation that turns a profit, distinct from the 'BBC' which is funded by license fees.

lucylucky

No advertising on my bbc.co.uk front page

pollypenny

Anyone who has been stuck in the USa and had to suffer their ad-ridden television and even worse radio, should appreciate the BBC.

It gives us a huge range of programmes, from soap opera to Simon Schama and David Dimbleby; while radio stations offer something for everyone.

With regard to BBC World, it does a good job of transmitting 'good' British values, as well as keeping ex-pats in touch.

Much better value that the flipping royal family.

rapido

. .

Cleany

Reaper wrote: »

I voted yes - commercial channels are obsessed with viewing figures because that is how they attract advertising. It's good to have channels that look beyond that.

but the BBC don't thats the problem. they run it like a commercial business with free money.

SO GLAD to see no winning by so much, i cant wait till they scrap the licence fee, its obscene, wasted by beaurocrats, and probably illegal.

im an f1 fan, and its not better on bbc. i would rather have a few adverts than put up with the partonising and committee run snippets you spend half the time watching. this box ticking exercise ruins the viewing. i dont want montages or special screens showing what happened to each team every 5 seconds. i can literally watch the money being wasted on flashy crap. this is the operation of a overweight beaurocracy that takes its almost 5billion income for granted.

and when you think that all sorts of people are taking a pay cut because of the financial situation its pathetic to call the bbc a nation treasure of some other rubbish. how good it is is a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that mostly its rubbish, the us make much better tv, look at things like house its light years ahead in quality of anything the bbc can make.

etc. !!

mccristo

In fairness ITV's coverage of the World Cup was a joke. I was frustrated every game with the amount of adverts as soon as a whistle blew. Long live the Beeb.

Cloudane

A. I believe it's worthwhile, it's nice to have a couple of channels that don't get interrupted with adverts and they do some great things on the internet - so great that even Americans often use it as a news source. I think that's something to be proud of not just for the BBC themselves but as a country as it's essentially us who own it.

But the way it's governed is immoral. Ask anyone without a TV, which is more and more common now that we have broadband internet - they get harrassed senseless, threatened and bullied by the licensing agency, as well as treated as 'guilty until proven innocent' contrary to the presumption of innocence that has been around since the 13th century. They need to either tame their rottweilers (and bring their attitudes forward about 800 years) or just have it as a universal tax that everybody pays and be done with it.

nicmx5

the argument about ITV paying for itself whereas the BBC is paid for even by people who don't watch it has a major flaw - as ITV is paid for by advertising, and the advertising cost will be added to goods and services supplied by the company advertising itself, everyone who uses those goods and services is paying for ITV, even if theydon't even own a TV or radio.

As for Rupert Murdoch not charging for channels you don't want, oh yes he does! I only want Sky Sports, but that is not an option. I have to pay for loads of other stuff before I can have Sky sports. Now that really is an injustice. And I have to put up with ads as well.:mad:

Keep the BBC advert free.:j