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

Cleany

kcm wrote: »

Hahahaha my friend, I don't choose that, my dad was an assis editor of a red top for what seemed like hundreds of years to me! I don't choose to believe I actually know what happens, I know most of the people who have to/have had to write that stuff to keep their jobs!!! No disrespect but before you have a go you shouldn't assume we're all idiots and you're the only smart one. Perhaps your opinion isn't the correct one on this occasion!

I'm sure stuff like this happens all the time. However it's got nothing to do with me!

kcm wrote: »

Incidently I agree with you on one thing in theory at least - should you necessarily have to pay for the bbc when you don't watch it. I'm afraid I have to say yes based on the current system, it would collapse if there was an opt out. But like you I'd welcome a grown up debate at least on how it could be done whilst keeping it ad free with quality content. More for those who can't afford it tho, than for those that just like to moan about it for moaning's sake but continue to watch it!

I would welcome such a debate :-)

AgarM

If there was an opt out, all of the polls I have seen gives around a 50/50 split as to whether to keep the licence fee or not. If the 50% that dont want it opted out it would still leave the BBC with around £1.5bn in licence fees plus profits from other sources. this would then make them consider how they spend the money would this not help as it would reduce the wastage.

Amber_47

I feel this poll is slightly biased towards those who want their evening's enjoyment interrupted by ads which now include products that soften human by-products and other things likely to make you spill your tea.
I reinforce this by example. If someone asked if you like bread the expected answer would be yes or no. To present the Poll in the form above is splitting the yes vote so the no vote will be more likely the majority.
I suggest a straight Yes / No followed by a second vote on would you like fee reduced or abolished in favour of ads dependent on the first answer. This would clarify who still wants the licence in some form or don't want the licence but also don't want ads.

barrylane

The number of people who would prefer to sit through advertisements than pay a licence fee astounds me. We now have TV channels in the UK that interrupt their commercials so they can show a few moments of a programme, and now they're saying they want to see the same thing on the BBC. How stupid are these people?

Oh, sure, the BBC broadcasts as much junk as any of the others, but they are also responsible for some of the finest television programmes ever made. If it became a commercial enterprise we could say good bye to most of those, perhaps all of them.

Their web site ranks in the world's top 5 - I'd vote it No. 1 if it wasn't for the Met Office's unreliable forecasts - and most of its radio stations are top notch.

Please, don't call for advertisements on the BBC. You'll very likely come to discover that what you're asking for is not actually what you wanted.

rapido

. .

lucylucky

Cleany wrote: »

EXACTLY

Answer that someone please.

Basically because no-one has yet come up with a better system

There are many things we all pay for but may never use, life is like that, not necessarily fair.

I cannot see how the licence fee can exist in its present form for much longer.

Many people mention that the BBC website is fantastic, and that may be true, but those that cannot access it or choose not to do not get a discount. Should they?

The BBC is heavily bureaucratic and needs a major overhaul.

This is a nice wee article

Bilbobaggins_2

I think that at over £100 the licence is far too expensive for what you get, you have to pay it regardless of the time you watch tv, I have chosen a car to suit my needs that only costs £35 a year to tax, you cant buy a tv licence to suit your needs!!

baldmosher

The legal standpoint on the TV Licence is very clear. (Edited after luckylucky's post below)

If you don't watch or record live satellite and/or live terrestrial TV signals and/or live internet streams at home, then you do not need a TV licence.

So that specifically excludes internet downloads, DVDs, Xbox, etc.

Any other personal copyright abuse at home is a civil, not criminal, matter. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that - the DE Bill might have had an effect!)

lucylucky wrote: »

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

There is: it's called the Internet. No licence required, and your support (phone/cable line rental) funds infrastructure improvements.

Even if the programme I want to watch isn't on iPlayer / ITV Player / 4od, I can download pretty much any programme, British or otherwise, in under 5 minutes, via a quick Google search. (It takes a little bit of effort to discover the best sites, as you won't find it on YouTube, but there are a handful of good sites that archive old programmes, and for the rest there's usually a torrent.) You can also use MSN to watch some shows, if you've got Windows 7, Vista, or Media Center Edition, or an Xbox 360. There are torrents for entire series to download, in HD, often before they even start being shown on British TV or Sky.

(Sky currently charge anyone who isn't already a paying customer for the privilege of watching their rubbish programmes online. Since I am in moral disagreement with Mr Murdoch's political and business practices, I refuse to pay him a penny of my money if I can help it, let alone £15 a month for 400 extra channels of crap, and certainly not £500+ a year for sports and movies that I'll never watch. People with bells & whistles Sky subscriptions must be either very dull or very wealthy.)

Personally, I think £12 a month to have the option of watching live TV legally is hardly worth worrying about. BBC Breakfast alone is worth 40p a day. Everything else is a bonus! Not only that, but the licence fee helps to pay for the terrestrial TV infrastructure, BBC radio, and the BBC's objective position, not just the programmes. (Having seen the state of things in the US and most other countries, I'd hate us to lose that privilege.)

You can't possibly watch & listen to everything the BBC does, and it might seem like poor value for money for some people, but I don't see how anyone can say they don't get ANY benefit from it, unless they live abroad, never use the BBC website and don't read any news reports that are based on information from the BBC (which, given its objectivity, is probably a lot more than you would think).

Given the legal standpoint, if you're that bothered about £12 a month, it's not exactly difficult to find ways to avoid paying it. (Getting off your couch and leaving the house instead of watching TV is certainly the best way.)

rapido

. .

baldmosher

Cleany wrote: »

6. You can also get Sky broadband which is EASILY the best value from the big players

That's why I pay for Sky. If I had to pay a subscription to the BBC the only thing that I would lose out on is the F1 and 5Live. I could watch QI on Dave at some point :P. And there are PLENTY of websites out there.

Cleany I disgaree with your opinion, but that's your opinion.

However on the above point:

Sky BB is NOT the best value (although it's not bad). Even without my mobile discount, the O2 unlimited packages are superior on speed and value. If you're not downloading very much, then OK, I take your point. But £10 a month plus £7.50 line rental for 20Mb unlimited internet and free evening/weekend calls is a whole level above what Sky can offer. And I don't have to buy a load of crap channels from O2.

You don't think £12 a month for F1 and 5live is worth it?