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

Cleany

lucylucky wrote: »

There is no equivalent to Radio 4

and thankfully no equivelant to people droning on about it

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

I am well aware of that, however i am far happier to watch the news as opposed to just reading someones opinion on it.

I am sure you appreciate the irony of that statement.

lucylucky

Cleany wrote: »

and thankfully no equivelant to people droning on about it

Oh don't know - have you listened to Apple fanbois recently - they are good at droning.

Cleany

lucylucky wrote: »

If you did read newspapers you would discover that they have differing views on many things - just like some politicians

i hear comedians making jokes abut the different opinions of the newspapers all the time, the mail being conservative, the express going on about lady di, etc. etc.

i used to read the mail because i found it interesting. then someone said to me "oh no the mail" because some bits of it were conservative and they weren't.

so what? not everyone is embroiled in these wars and conspiracies i keep hearing about.

how about people let others read papers, and watch whatever tv channels they like without having to judge them as being on a certain side, or being brainwashed or something.

some people are capable of taking or leaving things, no matter what newspaper they read or what channel they watch.

like someone else wise said earlier, im just aware of sky as a service i can choose to have or not have, and thats it!

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

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.

My apologies, I thought in your earlier post that you were suggesting there were equivalent things for all that the BBC broadcasts.

vokesey

nikam wrote: »

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.

And i am, so yes changing the bbc to a subscription service would suit me fine! But it'll never happen, simply because as popular as it is, it would suffer from the amount of people that wouldn't subscribe.
Many would just stick with sky, many would ditch sky in favour of what the bbc offered if it was to follow a similar format to sky and compete for more sporting events and movies etc, which if it were to reduce the millions paid to it's presenters they could afford to do.
But the good thing would be that you would then be able to CHOOSE, and wouldn't that be nice.

Cleany

lucylucky wrote: »

Oh don't know - have you listened to Apple fanbois recently - they are good at droning.

you're right about that! ;-)

vokesey

lucylucky wrote: »

My apologies, I thought in your earlier post that you were suggesting there were equivalent things for all that the BBC broadcasts.

for everything i'm interested in there are plenty of alternatives, if i've missed something due to not having either the same interests or as wide an amount of interests as you then i apologies and take your point on the chin.
But that still sits firmly in the bracket of "personal preference/choice"
So at the end of the day we return to the point that for the charge to remain fair, it must be those that want/use it, pay for it, those that don't (that's me and just a few million others!) don't.

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

for everything i'm interested in there are plenty of alternatives, if i've missed something due to not having either the same interests or as wide an amount of interests as you then i apologies and take your point on the chin.
But that still sits firmly in the bracket of "personal preference/choice"
So at the end of the day we return to the point that for the charge to remain fair, it must be those that want/use it, pay for it, those that don't (that's me and just a few million others!) don't.

I have said before I think the BBC will struggle to justify a licence in this multi platform age, but how and what you encrpyt and stop others getting will be a fun(!) task.
And probably cost us (taxpayers) money.

As for interests I have no idea if mine are "wider" than yours, they may well be different.

I have actually never listened to Radio 6 for example.

vokesey

lucylucky wrote: »

I have said before I think the BBC will struggle to justify a licence in this multi platform age, but how and what you encrpyt and stop others getting will be a fun(!) task.
And probably cost us (taxpayers) money.

As for interests I have no idea if mine are "wider" than yours, they may well be different.

I have actually never listened to Radio 6 for example.

Nor i, didn't even know there were that many.
I'm not sure why if we cease to fund the bbc any of what it does to encrypt it's service will cost the tax payer? But if that were the case then at least it would only be a one of thing to get it started, you'd then have £145 in your pocket every year there after (unless you subscribe.)