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

Cleany

kcm wrote: »

I don't think some people realise how things could be without the good old bbc - love or hate it.

trevorpayne1 wrote: »

The license funded BBC is an exquisitely British institution which we should cherish.

Yuck!

You may like the BBC, but that doesn't mean we're all somehow obliged to appreciate it. Nor be forced to pay for it to watch any TV at all.

To put it in your cosy old-english living room terms.

"The licence funded BBC is an agonisingly outdated British tradition which we should take for granted and then replace. I don't think some people realise how much money it wastes - love it or hate it."

rapido

. .

lucylucky

"So there you have it. Watch your favourite programmes on iPlayer."

Shame not all programmes are on there but such is life.

And if you do use the iplayer to watch stuff "as live" then you do need a licence

epabz

I think the BBC is a great service and should be funded by taxes. But not the licence fee. Option D?

The TV licence fee is waste of money. I would be interested to know how much of the revenue collected is spent on the administration, staff, offices, high tech detecting vehicles, etc. etc.

As over 99% of the citizens use the services of the BBC and we all benefit from them, the funding should come out the pot of existing taxes (income tax, NI, VAT, capital gains etc. etc.)

There's no need for a separate tax.

Cleany

rapido wrote: »

Sorry, did you bother to read your original posting and my response? You said:

"Basic Sky has hundreds of channels for as little as £18.50 a month"

These "hundreds of channels on the sattelite which you also get" are nothing to do with Sky! They are free to air, and I can receive them happily without paying a penny to Sky.

They may be free to air, but you still get them with Sky TV. You may pay x amount per month but you can usually get (I did) free installation, a free satellite dish and receiver with built in HD recorder.

rapido wrote: »

By your logic about Freeview "not being free", then neither are these mythical "hundreds of Sky channels" free.

Unless with Sky, you don't need to pay a tv licence? News to me!

-rapido

No they're not free, you get them with Sky. You could also get them with Freesat (I imagine) or if you made your own satellite dish and receiver and stuff.

My point is that what you get when you pay Sky is a lot more than the few channels you get with the BBC.

Even if you count all of the Sky services, the free dish and Sky+, digital radio channels and pit that against the BBC channels, radio and websites. You don't have to pay Sky to watch TV, where you have to pay the BBC to watch any television, whether you like it or not, even if you don't watch any of their channels.

666awy

The BBC is world class. Just talk to people abroad who have seen it and would give their eye teeth to have more of it. It ain't broke - quite the opposite - it's a UK success story. Politicians should leave it alone and keep the licence fee as the simplest fairest method of funding it. And definitely no ads..... PLEASE !!

AgarM

you are correct my apologies, BBC Worldwide are in charge of commercial sales of BBC products/services which have generated profits of £145m on revenues of £1074m for 2009/2010 which is up 36.5%. In 2008/2009 BBC made over £3bn from licence fees alone, add this to any profits made from BBC Worldwide and you must ask where does it go.

BBC trust say in 2008/2009 this is how the licence fee was spent:

67.58% - All TV
10.45% - National network radio
9.30% - Transmission and licence fee collection costs*
7.61% - Local radio and radio in the nations
5.05% - Web sites

Thats 99.99 percent of the licence fee money, who pays the salaries of the BBC employees?
Where is all this money going, with rediculous salaries, repeated programmes such as moving things from BBC3 to BBC2, silly gameshows etc.

kcm_2

Cleany wrote: »

Yuck!

You may like the BBC, but that doesn't mean we're all somehow obliged to appreciate it. Nor be forced to pay for it to watch any TV at all.

To put it in your cosy old-english living room terms.

"The licence funded BBC is an agonisingly outdated British tradition which we should take for granted and then replace. I don't think some people realise how much money it wastes - love it or hate it."

I certainly don't thnk it's perfect, I think it's just better than Sky and ITV etc etc. I'd welcome a review of the the way we pay our licence fee and hey if it could be brought down a few pounds then hurrah. However, I don't want that to mean we get substandard TV or ads for every five mins of a programme! I'd actually pay more to not get ads and I'd pay even more on top to ensure Rupert Murdoch doesn't get anywhere near it ever!!!!! Who do you think starts all these 'down with the bbc' stories in the (Rupert Murdoch owned) papers in the first place!!! Yeah ok the clue was in the question . RM despises the BBC because it's the one thing he has no say in (yet - now he bankrolled the Tories who are now in power!!) So I will always pay a premium to ensure he stays away!

Everyone has their own opinions based on their own values and that's great. For me personally I consider what I want my kids to inherit in ten years time and I think the BBC suit my personal values on that front. Each to their own.

lucylucky

One of the downsides of Sky is the lack of choice.

You cannot choose which channels you wish - only packs.

If there was truly a system where you could build your own channel list then that would be better.

Skeenfleent

Cleany wrote: »

you obviously dont have sky. there are hundreds of channels on the sattelite which you also get. there's a lot of foreign ones, and a lot of rubbish, but also a lot of good stuff, and independant and specialist programming...

...i think we should all be able to choose what tv channels we pay for. you obviously like the bbc service and think it's worth the money. but remember that's just your opinion, and it's so inexpensive because millions of others are forced to pay for it, subsidising your viewing and listening.

Well I agree about there being SOME good content on there but you have to pay more and more to make it interesting. One can't have the best sports channel, the best foreign channel, the best music channel and the best film channel as well as the best documentary channel and just pay for those, so what's your point again?
If Sky said you could pay only for what you use, in a pick and mix fashion, it would be better, but they don't, not individual channels and pay-for-what-you-watch. Why? Because popular channels subsidise the unpopular ones, exactly like the BBC is subsidised by people who don't watch it but who buy a TV licence.
Sure, it's a choice whether to pay for Sky, but in order to watch content, it's still either no TV or forced subsidising, just like the BBC.

Incidentally, surely the BBC has SOMETHING you like, or are you just avoiding it on principle? That Sky+ PVR will record whatever there is...