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

AgarM

It's not about the adverts, it's that fact that you have to pay BBC money to watch any live tv regardless of the provider or whether you watch BBC or not. The licence covers live braodcasting of any kind yet is called the BBC TV LICENCE which should be optional

The BBC is NOT a free to air broadcast as you MUST pay a licence fee to subsidise the broadcasts. I wouldn't mind if all of their programmes were of great quality but there not. Regardless of what we all think something has to be done, maybe initially reduce the fee in half, this will reduce the ammount of money BBC can waste and they might just start thinking about how it is spent a decide to produce better programmes because at the moment nobody is completely happy with how it stands at the moment.

vokesey

I totally disagree! the bbc put nothing on that's any better than any other channel, but this is all going to come down to simple difference of opinion. I am not happy to pay for it as i don't believe it's value for money, plus if i have any device that receives a tv i have to pay for a license. and why call it a tv licence? it's a bbc licence, you don't need it to watch any other channels, just the bbc, and i really don't watch it enough to justify what they charge!
The news is the same news that's on any other news channel, bbc radio is full of the same rubbish that ALL other radio stations are (I don't tend to have the radio on unless the other half is in the car as she doesn't like my cd's!) and as i say i don't get on with the majority of todays "bands".
The only benefit of the radio stations is the lack of ads, but it's full of enough pap to more than make up for that. As for ads on tv, i find them a welcome break for a cuppa or a visit to the little boys room.
Some on here are saying that it'll change with the digital switch, i don't see how. the channels will still be there and as you have receiving equipment you will still be able to get them, thus you will still be required to pay! The long and short of it is, if you want to watch ANY tv, you need to pay the bbc tax! And that's exactly what it is!!:mad::mad:

AndrewL_2

I wonder if all the people voting for (yet more!) ads have thought about the facts that:
- advertisers will recoup the costs of making and placing ads from us consumers
- if advertising were to be carried on the BBC the competition for advertising revenue would hit present stretched commercial services

The Licence Fee sounds a lot in one 'bite' but is extraordinary value over a full year. How many tickets for concerts, films or soprting events could you get for it? If you buy a newspaper every day how much is that costing you a year? How much do people willingly pay for satellite TV to receive hundreds of channels of dross?

The Licence Fee also guarantees the BBC's independence on editorial and production issues.

The BBC needs to be more careful and open about what it does with Licence Fee, but the Fee remains the best way of funding it.

Paul_Herring

AndrewL wrote: »

I wonder if all the people voting for (yet more!) ads have thought about the facts that:

What about those voting against being forced to fork out money for stuff they don't use?

vokesey

mumtaz wrote: »

Seriously, folks, do you really believe 40p a day is too much to pay for:
your BBC local radio station which keeps you up to date on school closures in bad weather such as we had last winter, as well as offering an unparalleled local news service;
Radios 1,2,3,4 and 5 plus the digital radio channels for people with DAB radios,
BBC 1, 2, 3 & 4 and a 24 hour digital TV news channel plus R4 long wave for cricket fans and more
A news and sport website that included text commentary from every World Cup match as well as the Premier League when it's under way
Local national and international weather reports
plus there's even more than this and I'm amazed that anyone thinks the licence fee is too high when they can access this sort of service.
I am amazed that people think advertisements all over their TV and radio and inane presenters who might well be influenced by advertisers would be a better option!

It's not just about the cost! Personally ads really don't bother me! they aren't all pointless. It's about choice. I want, need and CHOOSE to drive, i get a license and do it, if i CHOOSE to own a gun, i get a license and do it, if i CHOOSE to become a pilot, i get a license and do it. And don't quote me but i'm fairly certain that pretty much every service you give them such credit for is available from another provider FREE OF CHARGE!
The beeb aren't the only one's, sky is no longer the value for money it started as either, but you have the choice wether or not you pay for it. They should move with the times and give people the choice, the main reason they would never do that is they fear the amount of people who would CHOOSE not to receive it.

vokesey

rapido wrote: »

No you don't "have to pay Sky subscription to watch tv". You can receive free-to-air channels via satellite.



I think you've been completely misadvised. Sky does not provide the "normal terrestrial channels". They are unencrypted on the same satellites that Sky uses, as a benefit to satellite viewers.



Well you can just get a digital set top box (Freeview box) and connect it between your aerial and analogue tv, and hey presto, all the digital terrestrial channels. That's kind of what everyone else has to do.

But you have a satellite receiver already, you can save the expense of a Freeview box, so the simplest thing would be to cancel Sky (if you don't watch Sky), and continue to watch the unencrypted channels on satellite.

-rapido

all well and good, but these people have still had to cough up for freeview boxes or a sky installation to access the "freeview" for which they then still have to pay the bbc tax!

nikam

Hi there, new poster here (Mum of 3 Bedfordshire via Maryland USA and Fife Scotland).

There's two conversations here which are running in parallel and frequently colliding! Reminds me of my eldest two talking over each other!!

1 is the BBC worth it's price of 145pa?

2 should the ability to watch any television at all be licened in the way that it is?

There's pretty unanimous agreement that question 1 is a big YES.

question 2 is arousing a variety of differing opinions.

1 My personal take on it having grown up in the USA is that you guys dont know how lucky you are. The BBC (as a provider of content) is fantastic value for money.

2 The fact you are "taxed" to own a working tv is a different story.

The most straightforward fix for this "why should i pay for a service i don't want" would be to follow all of these steps -

a. maintain the license fee but treat it more as an annual subscription
b. remove ALL bbc channels from sky, virgin, cable etc
c. broadcast all BBC channels encrypted only for subscribers
d. restrict access to BBC web sites to only subscribers
e. make branson and murdoch negotiate channel packages with the bbc to supply (at a price) to their sattelite & cable customers

The only thing that would remain unrestricted would be Bbc radio programs. And that's only because there isn't a way of restricting radio in the same way.

If, in practice, you are a "pay for what you use" person, this should suit you just great.

DJFearRoss

It's the NEWS content that I object to the most. Yes, it's great there are no commercials and some good shows come out of it, however PC they are.

But.. the BBC News, which the BBC is known for, isn't same the BBC of many years ago. It has changed and many people haven't woken up to that. It is extremely left wing. In fact it's more dangerous than other commercial News sources because people actually believe BBC News is impartial as it is 'free' (so to say). Too often i've noticed how opinionated the BBC news is, giving their opinion, when i just want the facts and to make up my own opinion.

Just type "BBC Bias" into google and examine the results and make your own conclusion.

vokesey

AndrewL wrote: »

I wonder if all the people voting for (yet more!) ads have thought about the facts that:
- advertisers will recoup the costs of making and placing ads from us consumers
- if advertising were to be carried on the BBC the competition for advertising revenue would hit present stretched commercial services

The Licence Fee sounds a lot in one 'bite' but is extraordinary value over a full year. How many tickets for concerts, films or soprting events could you get for it? If you buy a newspaper every day how much is that costing you a year? How much do people willingly pay for satellite TV to receive hundreds of channels of dross?

The Licence Fee also guarantees the BBC's independence on editorial and production issues.

The BBC needs to be more careful and open about what it does with Licence Fee, but the Fee remains the best way of funding it.

It's only good value if you use it, It's still about choice! i'd far rather not be charged for something i barely use and keep the 40p a day thanks, as for the channels of dross, well again it's a choice and people like to be given the choice over what they pay their hard earned money on.
Also with all these people being against advertising, how exactly do you propose we learn about new products? or the latest offers? And how many people would that see unemployed?
Lets put it to a choice, see how many people decide not to receive it, and then lets see how much they charge the minority that still want it.
The opinion polls don't lie, and clearly the majority of people would happily ditch them, i would!

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

all well and good, but these people have still had to cough up for freeview boxes or a sky installation to access the "freeview" for which they then still have to pay the bbc tax!

Just for clarification you don't need to pay Sky anything to access satellite channels.