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

Mr_Mumble

neilpost wrote: »

Go to the USA, and see what the commercial everything, lowest common denominator gets you. As with most things in the USA, what you get for free is limited, and the rest you need to pay for.

The likes of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox are all free-to-air. Almost all of Sky One's content (24, House, Lost, latest Simpsons, Lie To Me, Cold Case, Bones) is 'free' in the US. This works the other way round to only a very limited extent (Damages for example on BBC1 is on Fox's basic cable network in the US).

So the cost of supporting this multi-billion pound lavishly wasteful luvvy and celeb schmoozing business gets put on the cost of everything that you buy is escaping you.... yet you complain about a TV poll tax. I already like Crunchy Nut (Cornflakes), I don't need for them to be re-launched at great expense every 3-4 years, or for Tesco to innanely tell me 'Every Little helps', when they won't open me a checkout as they have !!!!!! all staff whilst raking in £3bn profits.

You have a choice to buy whatever food you want without being chucked in jail if you don't pay a food Tax for a special government organised brand. I've never seen Lidl, Netto, Aldi, Spar et al advertise on national TV - moneysavers don't have to subsidise TV via consumer goods.

BBC best value in the world ever. Long may it keep going, and all goverments leave it alone.

If government said it wasn't going to change the BBC but change the payment method from a compulsory license fee to a voluntary subscription would everyone be happy? Based on current polling it would mean a BBC subscription would cost around £300 per household - if you're unhappy with that kind of charge you'd be admitting the only reason you see the BBC as value for money is because of the threat of imprisonment for those who will not and then can not pay.

Wonder how long until it is 'Tits out' @ Channel 5 again, now it has changed owners again, whilst we are talking lowest common denominators :rotfl:

When you have one of the largest media companies in the world (Bertelsmann owners of RTL) unable to compete in the British TV market its a sure sign that the BBC are crowding out competition. Why do the Americans have so many small classy channels producing superb drama such as HBO, Showtime, FX and AMC whereas Britain is a wasteland? Original drama is unfeasible for smaller UK channels, thanks to the BBC's TV Tax.

AgarM

the real question is should you be forced to pay to watch live brodcast tv? out of the five terrestrial channels you are forced to pay for 2 of them whether like it or not, out of the 100's of those on subscription tv you are forced to pay for around 8 channels. You do not have a choice unless you watch online (and are able to prove it to the BBC) which is not practical for everyone. We should be given a choice, the BBC have more money than we know about and if it needed to save money due to loss in licence fees reduce wages, expenses, travel costs etc.

vokesey

AgarM wrote: »

the real question is should you be forced to pay to watch live brodcast tv? out of the five terrestrial channels you are forced to pay for 2 of them whether like it or not, out of the 100's of those on subscription tv you are forced to pay for around 8 channels. You do not have a choice unless you watch online (and are able to prove it to the BBC) which is not practical for everyone. We should be given a choice, the BBC have more money than we know about and if it needed to save money due to loss in licence fees reduce wages, expenses, travel costs etc.

AMEN, there's that word again, choice!

TonyI

Over the last 40 years I have watched TV all over the world and can confidently say that what the BBC has to offer is second to none. Yes there are pockets of mediocrity and down right dumbing down but these are generally the exceptions rather than the rule, whilst with other broadcasters the reverse is the case. Then when you throw in the radio and internet services you are looking at a package of products which are without equal anywhere in the world.

Any cut in funding or introduction of advertising would be disastrous, lowering the quality of the output, whilst playing straight into the hands of Murdoch and his cohorts.

I defy anyone to find anything that comes within a mile of the quality and cost of the BBC and this witch hunt which is driven by a number of its competitors simply arises from their inability to compete on the basis of programme and quality excellence.
I would gladly pay more if it meant no adverts and better programmes!

Be careful what you wish for as you might just regret it!

TonyI

vokesey

TonyI wrote: »

Over the last 40 years I have watched TV all over the world and can confidently say that what the BBC has to offer is second to none. Yes there are pockets of mediocrity and down right dumbing down but these are generally the exceptions rather than the rule, whilst with other broadcasters the reverse is the case. Then when you throw in the radio and internet services you are looking at a package of products which are without equal anywhere in the world.

Any cut in funding or introduction of advertising would be disastrous, lowering the quality of the output, whilst playing straight into the hands of Murdoch and his cohorts.

I defy anyone to find anything that comes within a mile of the quality and cost of the BBC and this witch hunt which is driven by a number of its competitors simply arises from their inability to compete on the basis of programme and quality excellence.
I would gladly pay more if it meant no adverts and better programmes!

Be careful what you wish for as you might just regret it!

TonyI

No one could find anything to rival the quality of the bbc, in your eyes that is. because that is personal preference. You don't have to like it for it to be better to someone else. So sorry, that is a pointless arguement.
Not everyone is privy to the info on the murdoch conspiracy theories, and i am not particularly interested in them. Even if it is true and him achieving his goal means what everyone seems to think it does, we will still have the choice over wether we pay for it or not.
Which for me is the most important point.
I don't dislike the bbc, i don't think ALL of it's programs are a waste of transmitter use (just the majority!) But i don't like being forced to pay for something without justification either!

kcm_2

vokesey wrote: »

No one could find anything to rival the quality of the bbc, in your eyes that is. because that is personal preference. You don't have to like it for it to be better to someone else. So sorry, that is a pointless arguement.
Not everyone is privy to the info on the murdoch conspiracy theories, and i am not particularly interested in them. Even if it is true and him achieving his goal means what everyone seems to think it does, we will still have the choice over wether we pay for it or not.
Which for me is the most important point.
I don't dislike the bbc, i don't think ALL of it's programs are a waste of transmitter use (just the majority!) But i don't like being forced to pay for something without justification either!

To reply to the point in bold. If we are correct then thousands of people will actually lose the right to a choice - because they'll no longer be able to afford it. So surely those who seem so intent on choice will actually be doing more harm than good in this particular case?

bobwebb114

The unique way the BBC is funded?
How is it unique when they show so many adverts as most guests are either selling something or promoting films, books etc and now that product placement has officially been allowed it is like the gateway for the marketing people has opened up.
Lies, lies and more lies are their threats too.

davidanddeirdre

I find it depressing that we are even having this discussion, in the sense that to me it goes without saying the BBC is a good thing, because it ensures that there is an impartial & critical view of the world. If the media ever becomes totally commercially controlled in Britain, we will be entirely at the mercy of business people whose interests will be only in making money and pushing their personal opinions at us. People may think that does not matter until it happens and they find that democracy is being subverted, and there is nothing they can do about it. Beware!!

ErisBadb

tghe-retford wrote: »

Considering the BBC is public owned....

Does this mean the profits go back to the public????????????????

Cleany

kcm wrote: »

It's funny because on the whole those who want the Beeb scrapped or subscription based seem dead sure they're all right and we're all morons for liking the BBC.

no it's this attitude people object to

cplatten wrote: »

I don't think you are arguing from a position of knowledge.