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

ParaPrincess

Yes, without a fee they would have to cater to the majority audience instead of putting informative shows that aren't full of drivel. I don't really like BBC1 though! BBC 3 (I think that's the one with the science shows) would suffer fo' sho'.

pennypinchUK

Anyone who has spent any time in the US and watched their public service TV will know about the preposterous number of ad breaks in their programmes. Indeed, even a comparison in the UK between ITV and the minor channels makes the BBC compare favourably, simply because the programmes aren't constantly interupted by inane and repetitive adverts. While the BBC is far from perfect the license fee is worth it simply for being able to watch a programme from beginning to end, without interruptions.

The biggest problem faced by the commercial channels is that fewer companies are willing to spend as much on TV commercials advertising, preferring to spend their marketing budgets on more targeted, new media.

If the BBC becomes funded by advertisers, and advertising revenue declines much further there won't be a BBC or any other channels as we know them.

wildthing01

i voted yes - i do think it's an important public service. However - since we pay for it, i do think we ought to be given some more say in the programming. in recent years, the BBC seems to be going down the ITV route, with talent shows, game shows and reality shows - not that i have anything against ITV, but they do that sort of thing so much better than the BBC - the BBC versions just look a bit cheap and rubbish in comparison! plus, i wouldn't call that sort of show a public service! the BBC should stick to what they're good at.

BaldacchinoR

I agree the fee is outdated. The point is why should people be taxed to supply entertainment? And which they may not wish to watch or listen to? Providing entertainment is not a valid reason to tax people. This is a mistaken use of taxing powers.

If the BBC is financed by other means, including advertising and sponsorship as well as sales of merchandise, then people can choose not to watch or listen to their programmes without penalty, as they do with other free-to-air channels. With the licence fee, people are penalised as they have to pay even if they don't watch or listen to the BBC.

Eliminate unnecessary taxation - eliminate the TV licence fee.

aggrieved

Get rid of the BBC competition and Rupert M will have a free rein to fill his channels with cheap inane programmes in between ever lengthier advertising breaks. Impartial news and political coverage will no longer be available. Anything worth watching will be charged an extra exorbitant fee for viewing and when it is too late perhaps people will realise that the present licensing system is all that protects us from this nightmare scenario.

lucylucky

BaldacchinoR wrote: »

I agree the fee is outdated. The point is why should people be taxed to supply entertainment? And which they may not wish to watch or listen to? Providing entertainment is not a valid reason to tax people. This is a mistaken use of taxing powers.

If the BBC is financed by other means, including advertising and sponsorship as well as sales of merchandise, then people can choose not to watch or listen to their programmes without penalty, as they do with other free-to-air channels. With the licence fee, people are penalised as they have to pay even if they don't watch or listen to the BBC.

Eliminate unnecessary taxation - eliminate the TV licence fee.

The BBC does not exist merely to entertain, parts of its role are to inform and educate too.

BaldacchinoR

pennypinchUK wrote: »

Anyone who has spent any time in the US and watched their public service TV will know about the preposterous number of ad breaks in their programmes. Indeed, even a comparison in the UK between ITV and the minor channels makes the BBC compare favourably, simply because the programmes aren't constantly interupted by inane and repetitive adverts. While the BBC is far from perfect the license fee is worth it simply for being able to watch a programme from beginning to end, without interruptions.

The biggest problem faced by the commercial channels is that fewer companies are willing to spend as much on TV commercials advertising, preferring to spend their marketing budgets on more targeted, new media.

If the BBC becomes funded by advertisers, and advertising revenue declines much further there won't be a BBC or any other channels as we know them.

Haven't you noticed the repeat trailers on the BBC? Just as annoying as repeat adverts. I am sure the BBC would do repeat adverts as well, as they do in Canada on their channels. Its annoying, like all the other pollution on TV, such as obtrusive and large logos, telling us what's next while trying to watch your programme, discussing what's next during your programme, overloud adverts and trailers and other unwanted interrutions. But its still better than paying the licence fee and if there was no fee, you could afford a DVD receorder, and could edit your programmes and watch without interrution!

brodev

The biggest problem I have with this license fee or tax is that the beneficiary ie the BBC is under no obligation whatsoever to supply a service to it's customers. If someone can receive it's programmes, great, but if not as sometimes happens in the remoter parts of Britain then that is tough. If you can only receive ITV then you are still required to pay with no requirement on the BBC to do anything.

lazer

I voted that the fee should be lower, and by that i mean much lower

In 1990 the TV licence was £71, it is now more than double that at £145

Allowing for inflation the £145 today is £91 in 1990, thats almost a 30% real increase in 20 years.

Have the improvements been worth it.
IMO - the BBC should go back to basics BBC 1/ BBC 2 and a minimal amount of Radio - possibly Radio 2, 5live, and Radio 6, as well as a number of local stations. These continue to be funded via the licence

The BBC should continue with the provision of the other channels by advertisin, subscription, product placement etc.

Reduce the cost to c. £70 a year.

The lost revenue can be re-couped through the revenue generated above from the commercial arm of the BBC.

Also i propose a additional tax on subscription TV - that way you are hitting those that really want to watch TV, not the light users.

The website costs - perhaps a 50p a month tax on broadband which could be used to fund BBC online.

gsddusty1

I question why I had to pay the licence fee as I am in an area which has switched over to digital. I do not have a digital TV and so therefore have to pay sky subscription to watch TV. As I cannot receive normal terestrial TV except through sky to my way of thinking I shouldnt have to pay licence fee. However I was advised that legally I have to pay although I cannot get channels without sky. I find this offensive. Even worse I live in a rural area and so cable tv etc is not an option so my only choice is sky or buying a digital TV.