'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion
Options
Comments
-
tghe-retford wrote: »it means that either public service content would be sidelined or axed because they don't make money
What's this "public service" content? Eastenders? Snog, Marry Avoid? Strictly Come Dancing?
Vomit!tghe-retford wrote: »Rupert Murdoch, an Australian born but American citizen will become the gatekeeper to the BBC on the two biggest television platforms in the UK.
Why is there always a conspiracy and big enemy that will satisfy someone's point of view?
Are we paying nearly £150 a year to satisfy some people's paranoia?0 -
from the BBC License fee.
So all these people saying can the BBC License may find that getting rid of the BBC has a much greater impact than just saving you £150 pa.
Imagine if there was no BBC..... No free news on the BBC Website. You would have to pay to use the websites of the commercial newspapers. And we all know they aren't very good.
No BBC, No David Attenbourgh,
Top Gear would feature the latest car from the latest company plugging something and no more totally 'honest' reviews from Clarkson (hmm not sure I agree with that one myself).
No more local news on the TV or the radio.
No more Larkrise.
Masterchief sponsored by Tesco.
The WAR News sponsored by BAE Systems - When you just have to blow !!!!!! up from a long way away.
There is a lot of rubbish on the BBC but there are also a lot of little gems.
And the BBCiPlayer is nearly perfect.
I struggle for money but if we did get our License fee back we would have to spend it with FOX News or the Current Bun so we wouldn't save anything and loose something really valuable.:T0 -
tghe-retford wrote: »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?
Yes i do still think it's a good idea! because despite all your (and everyone else who's raised it) points about murdoch, it's still about choice and fairness! All this moping about ads etc is just pointless! if the only reason people can think of to keep the fee is to keep the bbc free from ads then i say the sooner it's gone the better! i don't mind ads, and looking at the current results to the poll nor do the majority of people posting/voting, i also don't care about murdoch monopolising the industry! if that were to happen then i'm certain he would have to deal with the monopolies committee, as as far as i'm aware monopolies are very much frowned upon if not illegal! hence why sky has to offer its channels to other providers.
At the end of the day, for me it comes down to two things;
1, value for money. The beeb is as full of mindless drivel these days as any other channel, and also has the same news as any other channel. (i prefer sky news anyway) i'm also unhappy at the fact as pointed out by another poster, that the programs i've paid to see are available in any country free of charge!
2, Choice. i hardly watch terrestrial tv at all these days, if it's on while i'm on leave it's mainly as background noise as it is at this moment, and i'm usually watching skysports news. (something the bbc doesn't have.) i CHOOSE to pay for sky, because i'm a football fan and i like to have a lot of channels to choose from, agreed the majority of those channels are total drivel, but if i get fed up with that i can cancel, i can't cancel the bbc. And these days i mostly watch just films sport and sky one, my other half mainly watches living tv, so neither of us particularly use the bbc.
So there you have it, value for money and choice, none of which i feel i get from thee bbc. plus i just had a holiday in cornwall for the same amount as it cost me to pay for a years "subscription" to the bbc. so i also have an alternative use for the money they rob from me!0 -
from the BBC License fee.
So all these people saying can the BBC License may find that getting rid of the BBC has a much greater impact than just saving you £150 pa.
Imagine if there was no BBC..... No free news on the BBC Website. You would have to pay to use the websites of the commercial newspapers. And we all know they aren't very good.
No BBC, No David Attenbourgh,
Top Gear would feature the latest car from the latest company plugging something and no more totally 'honest' reviews from Clarkson (hmm not sure I agree with that one myself).
No more local news on the TV or the radio.
No more Larkrise.
Masterchief sponsored by Tesco.
The WAR News sponsored by BAE Systems - When you just have to blow !!!!!! up from a long way away.
There is a lot of rubbish on the BBC but there are also a lot of little gems.
And the BBCiPlayer is nearly perfect.
I struggle for money but if we did get our License fee back we would have to spend it with FOX News or the Current Bun so we wouldn't save anything and loose something really valuable.:T
1, I don't have to pay to use sky news website. or indeed any news i see on my browser.(obviously i have to pay my ISP, but so do you!)
2,There are plenty of local radio stations that are not run by the bbc.
3,The best programs that the bbc run would probably survive due to popularity, if not with the bbc then by some one else that realises the comercial wealth involved.(probably only top gear.)
4, There is a lot of rubbish on other tv networks, but there also some little gems.(Football, quite popular in this country.)
Again i feel the need to point out that the bbc provides nothing that merits it charging for us to use it, EVERYTHING it shows is available in a similar format on other networks, if not the same program then certainly something similar or in some cases better.0 -
1, I don't have to pay to use sky news website. or indeed any news i see on my browser.(obviously i have to pay my ISP, but so do you!) Mr Murdoch would like to change that, hence his paywall for the Times
2,There are plenty of local radio stations that are not run by the bbc.
3,The best programs that the bbc run would probably survive due to popularity, if not with the bbc then by some one else that realises the comercial wealth involved.(probably only top gear.) Depends what you mean by "best" a lot of what some people consider to be the best are not necessarily popular, these would fall by the wayside
4, There is a lot of rubbish on other tv networks, but there also some little gems.(Football, quite popular in this country.) A lot of people don't like sport so football may not be classed as a "gem"
Again i feel the need to point out that the bbc provides nothing that merits it charging for us to use it, EVERYTHING it shows is available in a similar format on other networks, if not the same program then certainly something similar or in some cases better.
There is no equivalent to Radio 4
There is no equivalent to Radio 7
There is no equivalent to Radio 60 -
There is much in the Murdoch outpourings that is anti-BBC which no doubt influences many people. Those that are influenced by this in a similar way could be said to have sheep like herding insticts. That is in no way to denegrate anyone's opinion, however there are those that believe if something is published in the Sun then it must be true.(Gawd help them)
personally i agree with cleany. i form my own opinions and don't read any news rag, just like politicians they are all of the same shameful ilk and for want of better words urinate in the same pot! I know nothing of rupert murdoch, only that he owns a tv network that i can pay for if i want it, and don't have to if i don't.0 -
personally i agree with cleany. i form my own opinions and don't read any news rag, just like politicians they are all of the same shameful ilk and for want of better words urinate in the same pot! I know nothing of rupert murdoch, only that he owns a tv network that i can pay for if i want it, and don't have to if i don't.
If you did read newspapers you would discover that they have differing views on many things - just like some politicians0 -
There is no equivalent to Radio 4
There is no equivalent to Radio 7
There is no equivalent to Radio 6
Indeed, much of the content in both post falls in to the category of "personal choice" ie not everyone likes the same thing. Which was what my post was meant to point out.
I have never listened to radio 4,6 or 7.
And while there are no doubt millions in this country who hate football, i guarantee there are more that don't.
murdoch cannot make everything in the nation his, and he can't make us pay him for it. Honestly where exactly does this notion that he is trying to own the uk come from. The internet is rather vast, as is the world, and there are many news sites, you don't have to stick to one.0 -
the bbc are allowed to charge a licence fee by royal decree, in order to justify that charge and keep within the royal decree they have to remian completely unbiased, which they are not, so i for one do not agree with being forced to pay for an unbiased service that is biased0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards