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

kcm_2

Cleany wrote: »

you may dislike adverts so much as to describe a channel with them on as being a channel "of adverts". which they aren't of course.

But then at least they have a choice don't they.

Cleany, I get what you're saying, both yesterday and today, you want to be able to pay for the channels you want to watch not the ones you don't. I agree in principal although everyone does it. I have to pay Sky stupid money for literally one or two channels because they won't sell them to me in isolation. I am FORCED to pay more. I don't like that as much as you don't want to pay for the BBC. However the advantage for me is that I can choose to unsubscribe to Sky and pay nothing. That doesn't mean it's any less annoying or fair as why should I be forced to pay for a lot of crap on Sky for one decent channel?! Everyone has a problem in one way or another with the setup. It's not designed to be fair for all, it's about making money.

However, on the point about the UK never getting like the US in terms of ads it's already happening. You'll notice there is now one or two additional ads per episode on most commercial tv and radio stations and there have been a number of discussions to increase these further. That I know for a fact but no one is allowed to print it - yet. It won't happen immediately but it is inevitable. What prevents American style TV imminently is the BBC. If ITV etc etc suddenly upped their advert rounds people would be up in arms and flock to the BBC. If there was no BBC license fee and they also had ads there would be nothing preventing them all from becoming that way and it would happen because there is one hell of a lot of money involved. We could all complain but what would we all do? Switch to another channel with the same amount of ads?! We'd have made our beds and it would be impossible to go back. I have many American relations who would give their back teeth for BBC style TV.

So whilst I'm not against a few ads now and again if I really had to, I would gladly pay to avoid what would lie ahead. Those that say 'oh ads are ok just nip to the loo or make a cuppa' will be drinking like fishes and peeing every three minutes if others got their way!!!!! I genuinely think people will hate it. I'd suggest living US TV style for a month and seeing how it goes!

I think the answer is to reduce fees, not to scrap them, if the public really are that animated about it. Get the BBC to make sensible well thought through changes, not be forced to cut everywhere on a whim from a bit of murdoch fronted newspaper campaigning. Ensure people who genuinely struggle to pay it get a decent discount and that it can be paid weekly, monthly, quarterly or yearly without the penalties that currently exist. You could even argue that if the government think it's a necessity to equipped every less well-off family with a PC and broadband there's surely a discussion to be had about having the licence fee paid too!! There are a large number of options, but I think keeping the fees in check and lowering them for lower paid families and students would go a long way to building bridges and keeping everyone happy.

When you talk about choice, what you want changed by default therefore automatically removes my choice and then I end up like you so surely that’s not fair either? I don't want adverts everywhere, so why should I be forced to have them just because you want them? You see the big vicious circle? You have to find a solution that suits everyone as best it can. Many people will moan no matter what the BBC do, and I've no doubt even with a reduction you will still not like it, but perhaps that would be at least a more fair system for all. If you go down the subscription route I think the BBC would collapse so in my opinion that's not a viable option at this stage at least. Perhaps in the future.

pelirocco

Do I believe in it ? well how can i deny it exists .....................or am i just being pedantic ?

mrgibby2010

i would say get rid of the BBC license
so many people on low incomes cant afford this and this would help
these people out more
plus like all the rest you can watch the BBC in any country just by going online on the internet and watch it without a license

and all the other channels manage to fund there self's from adverts and
sponsors so why carnt the bbc do this as well

what is daft is you pay for sky and pay for your tv so the law was changed to benefit the bbc by charging for the transmitter but if you dont have a tv ariel why should they be paid for it

this is the 20 century so why not bring the bbc upto it as well people all over Britain strugling with mortgages and other things but getting a fine for no tv license is daft and should be abolished

lucylucky

mrgibby2010 wrote: »

i would say get rid of the BBC license
so many people on low incomes cant afford this and this would help
these people out more
plus like all the rest you can watch the BBC in any country just by going online on the internet and watch it without a license

and all the other channels manage to fund there self's from adverts and
sponsors so why carnt the bbc do this as well

what is daft is you pay for sky and pay for your tv so the law was changed to benefit the bbc by charging for the transmitter but if you dont have a tv ariel why should they be paid for it

this is the 20 century so why not bring the bbc upto it as well people all over Britain strugling with mortgages and other things but getting a fine for no tv license is daft and should be abolished

21st Century actually;)

3guesses

I am a strong supporter of the BBC and its non-commercial funding, but I also strongly believe that the licence fee model should be scrapped immediately and the corporation funded out of general taxation.

Practically everybody in the UK benefits from the BBC, so not only is this a much more equitable approach but it also means that we could do away with all the waste associated with collecting, processing and enforcing the current licence fee system - money which could be put to much better use (including reducing the effective amount of the licence fee). Slash the unproductive bureaucracy!

I also believe that the amount of funding the BBC receives should be significantly less. Indeed, I believe nobody at the BBC should be paid more than £250K p.a. - it should be considered a privilege to work for the corporation, and I'm sure there is plenty of new talent that could be developed if the existing talent is too greedy to work for a paltry £250K p.a. The high amounts paid by the BBC help underpin the high amounts generally available in the industry - remove that underpinning and we would no doubt see significant drops in salaries for many people who, let's face it, don't actually contribute anything particularly productive to society...

lucylucky

3guesses wrote: »

I am a strong supporter of the BBC and its non-commercial funding, but I also strongly believe that the licence fee model should be scrapped immediately and the corporation funded out of general taxation.

Practically everybody in the UK benefits from the BBC, so not only is this a much more equitable approach but it also means that we could do away with all the waste associated with collecting, processing and enforcing the current licence fee system - money which could be put to much better use (including reducing the effective amount of the licence fee). Slash the unproductive bureaucracy!

I also believe that the amount of funding the BBC receives should be significantly less. Indeed, I believe nobody at the BBC should be paid more than £250K p.a. - it should be considered a privilege to work for the corporation, and I'm sure there is plenty of new talent that could be developed if the existing talent is too greedy to work for a paltry £250K p.a. The high amounts paid by the BBC help underpin the high amounts generally available in the industry - remove that underpinning and we would no doubt see significant drops in salaries for many people who, let's face it, don't actually contribute anything particularly productive to society...

I am sure everyone who works for the BBC would agree with you in which case if it is a privilege they should be doing it for nothing?;)

ErisBadb

3guesses wrote: »

.

Practically everybody in the UK benefits from the BBC,

! ? !

Dave101t

i think everyone benefits too, only fools and horses on dave...old bbc shows.
best nature programs, bbc
radio in car...bbc.
jonathan woss....bbc, well itv!

however the original question: do you believe in it, we would all have to say yes to the poorly worded question, it exists, whether or not you believe in it, like gravity.

seriously, if its a funding issue make it an automatic inclusion on council tax, or wages, or benefits, but is that really any better than the current system?

should we make the bbc a paid for subscription like all the other services, and watch the quality nosedive as a reflection?

the saying, if it aint broke dont fix it was never more apt.

tghe-retford

I absolutely support the licence fee in its entirely. Because the alternative of voluntary subscription is far worse!

What annoys me is when people say it should either be like Sky or run by Sky, is the repercussions of such a move:

• A ad-funded commercial BBC would have to pander to advertisers to attract income like commercial broadcasters do now, it means that either public service content would be sidelined or axed because they don't make money.
• If the BBC went voluntary subscription, how would they keep non-payers out? Well, the BBC in the UK has always used the same technology used by Sky to "encrypt" or scramble its programmes. It did this before with an overnight service for professionals called BBC Select in the early 90s and more recently when they launched their digital channels on Sky (prior to going free-to-air). The technology used by the BBC is 49% owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation - NDS Group, and it is most likely, because Sky's satellite service uses it, that the only way to go is to use NDS Group technology.
  
  Sky also has permission to launch a pay TV service on digital terrestrial television (ie. digital TV through your aerial), and I would wager that if the BBC went voluntary subscription and with Rupert Murdoch planning to get full control of Sky soon, he would love (considering he dislikes the BBC) for Sky to gain control of who can and cannot access it.
  
  What does this mean? Rupert Murdoch, an Australian born but American citizen will become the gatekeeper to the BBC on the two biggest television platforms in the UK. With Murdoch's ideology to place things behind a paywall (as he is now with news content and he did with satellite TV in 1993 with 'Sky Multichannels') expect almost all free-to-air channels (excluding adult chat/shopping/religious/roulette) to go pay. So instead of paying around £12 a month for the BBC's channels and Freeview/Freesat, you'll pay I would suggest £30 a month minimum for the same channels because one company has a monopoly on TV distribution. Still think voluntary subscription is a good idea?

The licence fee is not perfect, but it is far more of a better scenario than the alternatives.

Cleany

kcm wrote: »

However, on the point about the UK never getting like the US in terms of ads it's already happening.

Thanks for your reply.

Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that the BBC somehow balances the advertising methods on TV in this country and keeps them from getting like it is in the US, and that people don't realise how bad it "would be" if the BBC wasn't there in its current form.

This is an interesting point. My personal opinion is that, firstly, there's no reason that I can see to suggest that the nature of TV advertising would change if the BBC weren't there. Why isn't it like the US now? Isn't there some other reason that we're not submitted to more ads like they are in the US.

And secondly, even if it were to change to be like it is in the US as you say, I would rather have that than be forced to pay nearly £150 a year just to be able to watch any TV. And it makes it worse when the BBC clearly wastes billions of pounds, takes the money for granted, and has a patronising and beaurocratic way about them.