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

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

It's not unfair, you will at least have the choice!

Some people, who are used to the current set up will see it as unfair - therefore it is, to them

Not everyone will be happy whether the status quo remains or not.

lalande21185

Please no more trashy adverts.

The commercials are becoming more and more brainless on the TV although satellite TV are the worst.
No imagination in 95% of them.
4 mins into a programme you get a commercial. Whats that about.
I always use sky plus so never watch a commercial. I record everything I watch and just jump the 5 mins when a commercial is there. Brilliant as dont have to fast forward and have to watch the TV to see when programme restarts.

I will happily pay the licence fee but all the BBC does is advertise its own dam programmes which can be worse than a commercial. So they advertise anyway.
85% of BBC TV is rubbish.
Complain more about the programmes than having commercials.

Does the Advertising Standards Authority actually DO ANYTHING?

If we are going to have more commercials, please can this so called Authority actually do something about the sleazy, brainless commercials. Lets have some standards in this country.

Please ASA, do something!!!!!!! especially if the BBC goes to commercials.

vokesey

Think this is getting a tad old now. it's really much ado about nothing, there will be no change because the government also benefit from the bbc, the same reason that despite many deaths related to drink and tobacco neither will be made illegal. (thankfully because as a matelot i have a reputation to uphold!) So thanks all, it's been emotional, funny, and informative!

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

Think this is getting a tad old now. it's really much ado about nothing, there will be no change because the government also benefit from the bbc, the same reason that despite many deaths related to drink and tobacco neither will be made illegal. (thankfully because as a matelot i have a reputation to uphold!) So thanks all, it's been emotional, funny, and informative!

It is indeed getting old but you have completely lost me now - sorry.

How do the government benefit from the BBC in the way they do from alcohol and tobacco? Do you mean in a financial sense?

More and more laws are being passed to restrict the use of both alcohol and tobacco including the banning of smoking in public places.

tghe-retford

kcm wrote: »

If you're saying you already pay too much in licence fees I warn you now that you will be paying a lot more in the future without the BBC. Subscription fee prices will rise hugely because of the lack of alternatives and you will be so heavily manipulated by what you read and watch. I'm not sure many people who say 'scrap the bbc, get rid of the licence fees' have actually considered that it won't mean TV will get cheaper, it means choice is removed and it'll get far more expensive because you have no alternatives. A bit like the energy companies and supply and demand at Christmas time!

People really are going to walk into a major problem if the BBC goes voluntary subscription - because we really could have a situation where there is indeed a lack of alternatives and where monopolies occur, consumers suffer. I fear that...

vokesey wrote: »

It's not unfair, you will at least have the choice!

...you'll have the choice of Sky, Sky Picnic, Sky By Wire/Sky Player or third parties such as TalkTalk or Virgin Media, and they'll tow the line Sky wants - look at the damage Sky inflicted on Virgin Media back in 2007, believe me, these companies will tow Sky's line or face the consequences, and remember for many people who have no access to IPTV or cable, Sky if it launches a pay TV service on digital terrestrial television, could well become the only choice for many people because BT or Top Up TV will never be able to or want to compete with the might of Sky and Murdoch - ie we get a monopoly and that's bad for consumers.

Instead of being forced to pay £12 a month for the licence fee, you'll have two choices, forced to pay I would suggest will be a minimum of £30 a month to Sky or a company which tows the line with Sky or go without TV. I'd argue anyone who believes TV will become much cheaper are being shortsighted and not seeing what could happen in the future, particularly post digital switchover.

sukkyg

i believe that the way forward is for the BBC to have card or something similar that allows those that want to watch BBC programmes to continue to do so and for those who who do not wish to watch BBC then they do not pay for it. This makes it very similar to how Virgin and Sky work, if you wish to have sky tv then u pay for it, if you wish to have virgin tv then you pay for that.

i do not think that the BBC license is something that we need to have in this day and age, and i would personally be quite happy not to have any of the BBC channels if it meant that i would save myself the license fee.

fallen121

My objection to the BBC licence fee is not the licence fee per se, but the way millions of licence payers' money is used, not to fund better programming, but to provide outrageous salaries for senior staff and more importantly the cost of chasing non payers.

As many already know, those of us who choose not to have TV are hounded like criminals by letters which arrive almost weekly and which threaten dire and often outrageous penalties if we do not pay. The fact that we may not need to pay never seems to enter into the equation. I long ago gave up writing and phoning, the cost of the phone calls alone is outrageous, I must negotiate a "press button one for this, press button 2 for that, your call is important to us" scenario, all of which I must pay for, and when I do get to speak to someone, they confirm on the records what they and I already know, that we do not have a TV. BUT THE LETTERS DO NOT STOP.

Have you seen these letters recently? They threaten that we will receive a visit and that anything we say will be taken down in evidence for use in court. But the people who visit (who pretend to be police officers, ram their foot in the door and show identification which even I could purchase on eBay) do NOT work for the BBC, have NO RIGHT to access my house or take down an official statement. They are not the police, VAT or Customs and they do not have a warrant. But they behave as though they have the right to rampage through my house.

Not only do I fear the distress being caused to many old people by these letters, but I am waiting for the day when someone pretending to be from TV Licensing forces access to an old person's house and makes off with their savings.

How can this type of nonsense be tolerated in our society? The fact is NOT having a TV is regarded as being as much of a crime as having one and not paying. With all the technology available now, there should be NO NEED for these threatening letters and even more threatening visits. If they have sophisticated detector vans as they claim, why aren't they using them? The answer is they only have a handful to cover the whole country, and most of them don't contain ANY sophisticated dtecting equipment at all, they are empty.

Information from http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm

1) Between 2003 and 2009, there were six working detector vans. Each of these was deployed several times a year. This low number of vans and deployments accounts for the BBC's view that release of this information would end their deterrent effect.

(2) In 2009, the BBC commissioned five more working vans. Thus, as of 2009, there are eleven vans. This does not preclude the possibility that the new fleet is replacing ("enhancing" in the contract award) the previous one, in which case there will fewer than eleven working vans.

(3) In addition, there are dummy or publicity vans that appear in supermarket car parks and other public places. Since the working vans are used so infrequently, it is likely that they spend most of their time in this capacity.

Information from http://www.bbctvlicence.com/TVL-BBC%20hiding%20of%20identities.htm

TVL/BBC regards members of the public who withhold their identity as licence fee "evaders". Yet comparison of letter signatures shows that TVL/BBC staff hide their own identities through the creation of fictional persons.

ErisBadb

lucylucky wrote: »

It is indeed getting old but you have completely lost me now - sorry.

How do the government benefit from the BBC in the way they do from alcohol and tobacco? Do you mean in a financial sense?

QUOTE]

or in a propaganda sense.............................................?;)

vokesey

tghe-retford wrote: »

People really are going to walk into a major problem if the BBC goes voluntary subscription - because we really could have a situation where there is indeed a lack of alternatives and where monopolies occur, consumers suffer. I fear that...

...you'll have the choice of Sky, Sky Picnic, Sky By Wire/Sky Player or third parties such as TalkTalk or Virgin Media, and they'll tow the line Sky wants - look at the damage Sky inflicted on Virgin Media back in 2007, believe me, these companies will tow Sky's line or face the consequences, and remember for many people who have no access to IPTV or cable, Sky if it launches a pay TV service on digital terrestrial television, could well become the only choice for many people because BT or Top Up TV will never be able to or want to compete with the might of Sky and Murdoch - ie we get a monopoly and that's bad for consumers.

Instead of being forced to pay £12 a month for the licence fee, you'll have two choices, forced to pay I would suggest will be a minimum of £30 a month to Sky or a company which tows the line with Sky or go without TV. I'd argue anyone who believes TV will become much cheaper are being shortsighted and not seeing what could happen in the future, particularly post digital switchover.

if he tries to create a monopoly then the competitions committee may want to know, Because monopolies are somewhat frowned upon, thus i think its kind of unlikely.

vokesey

sukkyg wrote: »

i believe that the way forward is for the bbc to have card or something similar that allows those that want to watch bbc programmes to continue to do so and for those who who do not wish to watch bbc then they do not pay for it. This makes it very similar to how virgin and sky work, if you wish to have sky tv then u pay for it, if you wish to have virgin tv then you pay for that.

I do not think that the bbc license is something that we need to have in this day and age, and i would personally be quite happy not to have any of the bbc channels if it meant that i would save myself the license fee.

amen brother!!!!