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

Swan_2

Cleany wrote: »

theoretically you could own it and deny you use it, why don't you give it a try and see what the nice people from TV licensing do?

I've done that in the past, when I genuinely wasn't watching any broadcast programmes, with the full knowledge of TVLA
they said they'd send someone round to check, but they never did

now that my son's moved in with me & wants to watch telly, I have a licence, but as soon as he moves on, I'll go back to using my telly for DVDs & gaming & being licence-free again

vokesey

kcm wrote: »

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?

See also a previous post. If murdoch is any kind of business man, and it would seem to me he knows a thing or two about it. He would have to ensure his product is available to the largest audience possible, thus it would have to be at a price the average family can afford.
Do you honestly think he's going to corner the market (however i still think ofcom oft and perhaps the competition committee may have something to say about that.) and have a product no one can afford??

If he was stupid enough to over price his product he would not be able to maintain control in a failing business, he would undoubtably be usurped by his board and shown the door. Either that or he would simply lose out to smaller products offered at lower prices!
The only reason sky is so successful at present despite the cost, is that it offers something for everyone, and there is no alternative. Yes virgin media et al exist as some form of competition, but they are carrying the majority of the same channels as sky, as they purchase the right to screen them.
But all that is a product of greed at the sellers end, the fa over value football so sky is the only one that will pay for it, and the same happens in the film industry.

There is always the option to have no tv. Ever heard of a dvd player.
So there is always a choice.

georgiagirl29

I totally support and am extremely grateful that we have the BBC, the programming is excellent and it's very good value for money. I am originally from the US and I confess for the first couple of years I bitterly resented having to pay the license fee but the BBC programming and no adverts won me over and I would not want to see the BBC reduced to having to insert commerically paid adverts in programmes. My 9 year old son loves CBBC, Dr WHO and the wildlife and science programmes which you would never find on commercial TV in the states. I love the BBC and we are so lucky to have it!

vokesey

georgiagirl29 wrote: »

I totally support and am extremely grateful that we have the BBC, the programming is excellent and it's very good value for money. I am originally from the US and I confess for the first couple of years I bitterly resented having to pay the license fee but the BBC programming and no adverts won me over and I would not want to see the BBC reduced to having to insert commerically paid adverts in programmes. My 9 year old son loves CBBC, Dr WHO and the wildlife and science programmes which you would never find on commercial TV in the states. I love the BBC and we are so lucky to have it!

Yet another argument based on another country! what other nations do is not under discussion here, nor is it relevant. The majority of people's concern is not the quality of programming either, it's simply the fact that we are forced to pay for it. Some one said earlier that you don't need a licence to own a tv. Well you can't buy one without having to give a valid address and post code, why is that? it's not for consumer research i'll tell you that much.
I keep reading this thread to see hopefully someone give a reasonable explanation as to why we don't get a choice in the matter, no one has yet provided one.
All these fears of the murdoch conspiracies and advertising and costs going through the roof are completely unfounded! He can't force you to buy his product, and if it's over priced then he'll lose out in the long run.
But here's just another thought, i also saw a post a while back saying, get rid of tv altogether, not just the bbc, then maybe people will learn to integrate again, and our youth won't spend there lives aspiring to the dizzy heights of false and undeserving celebrity!

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

Yet another argument based on another country! what other nations do is not under discussion here, nor is it relevant. The majority of people's concern is not the quality of programming either, it's simply the fact that we are forced to pay for it. Who are this majority of whom you speak?Some one said earlier that you don't need a licence to own a tv. Twas me and tis true! Well you can't buy one without having to give a valid address and post code, why is that? it's not for consumer research i'll tell you that much.
I keep reading this thread to see hopefully someone give a reasonable explanation as to why we don't get a choice in the matter, no one has yet provided one.
All these fears of the murdoch conspiracies and advertising and costs going through the roof are completely unfounded! Are they really? He can't force you to buy his product, and if it's over priced then he'll lose out in the long run. You don't need a TV so no-one is forcing anyone into anything
But here's just another thought, i also saw a post a while back saying, get rid of tv altogether, not just the bbc, then maybe people will learn to integrate again, and our youth won't spend there lives aspiring to the dizzy heights of false and undeserving celebrity!

I thought you had decided to pack in this thread as it was getting old?

vokesey

On the subject of fairness. I am in the armed forces, and for the fist 6 yrs of my career i travelled between yorkshire where i lived, and yeovil where i worked. I had a licence for my home address, but the licensing laws dictate that for me to watch tv whilst on base( in my own room before the pedantic brigade come out!), i need to have a separate licence, unless:

" In Ministry of Defence (MOD) accommodation, on or off base, you need to be covered by a TV Licence to watch or record television programmes as they’re being shown on TV, no matter what device you use. This includes computers, laptops, TVs, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders.
You are not usually covered by your home TV Licence while living on base. You’re only covered by your home licence if you watch TV using a device that’s powered solely by its own internal batteries, and it is not plugged into the mains or an aerial."

Mobile phones?? For crying out loud!! But
should i pay twice? Surely it's no different to watching two different tv's in different rooms of the same house?
Also, students living in a communal building need a licence per room, the same conditions exist in service accommodation!
However, one licence can cover an entire ship! Where is the consistency? Oh and why does a colour tv cost 3x a b&w? same programmes n'est pas?!
What next, An extra charge for larger screens? Or perhaps £50 more if you dare to have HD!?!?!?
Unfair unfair UNFAIR!!

nickj_2

i'm quite happy with the licence fee , when you see the number of ad breaks c4 and itv cram in during an hour it makes you grateful for ad free shows ,

vokesey

lucylucky wrote: »

I thought you had decided to pack in this thread as it was getting old?

I did, and it is, to the point that i actually wrote an essay on it at school and when i joined the navy! I am quite passionately against it!!
No, no one forces you to buy a tv, but if you want to have one and you get sky or any other media of that ilk Or wish to watch live tv you need a licence! lets stop being pedantic, you know exactly what i meant.
I have heard nothing of any murdoch conspiracies, but then on the odd occasion i bother, maybe i'm not reading the right paper?
But i think i've laid out enough points to make it apparent that for him to corner such a popular market and risk alienating his customers by over charging would be business suicide, he would also be unable to stop all competition from popping up (at least not for ever!)
I feel confident to say it is not a scenario that is likely in my eyes, not that it would greatly bother me as there are plenty of other things to do in life than sit infront of a tv.
The competition committee are formed out of what used to be the monopolies commission, and are set up to deal with such things, although some on here would also have you believe that he has them in his pockets too! ( in which case we should all give up caring and buy plenty of dvd's!)
So if you are all so worried about rupert murdoch i suggest you drop them a line, as they need to be asked to intervene as they are obviously independent.(?)

ladynala

The bbc hold the rights to analogue, that is how the license fee came about. However, we all hear the fuss about digital as analogue is being switched off, so how can the bbc charge for a service that most of us receive from sky, freeview, or virgin?? If they lowered the fee, and their MASSIVE salaries, i could understand the charge, for the entertainers, research and uninterupted viewing, however i am like most, i don't like being ripped off. The bbc should be ashamed. 60 million tvs est, in UK today x £145.50..........do the maths!!!!

kcm_2

vokesey wrote: »

See also a previous post. If murdoch is any kind of business man, and it would seem to me he knows a thing or two about it. He would have to ensure his product is available to the largest audience possible, thus it would have to be at a price the average family can afford.
Do you honestly think he's going to corner the market (however i still think ofcom oft and perhaps the competition committee may have something to say about that.) and have a product no one can afford??

If he was stupid enough to over price his product he would not be able to maintain control in a failing business, he would undoubtably be usurped by his board and shown the door. Either that or he would simply lose out to smaller products offered at lower prices!
The only reason sky is so successful at present despite the cost, is that it offers something for everyone, and there is no alternative. Yes virgin media et al exist as some form of competition, but they are carrying the majority of the same channels as sky, as they purchase the right to screen them.
But all that is a product of greed at the sellers end, the fa over value football so sky is the only one that will pay for it, and the same happens in the film industry.

There is always the option to have no tv. Ever heard of a dvd player.
So there is always a choice.

I just don't get your argument. Of course I've heard of a DVD player. One of the first things people on benefits pay for is Sky!! It's a bit of a given, not for all of course but for many, just like a mobile phone so you're off the mark if you think everyone will boycott Sky if their prices go up!! People waste hundreds of pounds through not changing their bank accounts so we're hardly the most prudent bunch! I'm not talking £1,000's of pounds obviously like it seems you're suggesting but it will be way way more than the £150 licence fee we currently pay. It’s not just about money. Paying that to ensure prices remain competitive and TV remains more impartial and ad free in places too is such a sensible thing. Murdoch's strategy is to charge for all content; he already does it on the web, and it’s all so dreadfully biased. I just don’t want that. Those three things together are enough to keep me happily paying the licence!

As for the competitions commission that those who are anti BBC keep harping on about, what do you think they're going to do exactly? Gas companies all charge pretty much the same ludicrous tariffs and prices have risen grotesquely over the last few years. Who's stopped them? Who's made them drop their prices to sensible numbers? No one. So why do you believe so fiercely that a knight in shining armour's going to ride in and force Sky to keep their prices down. They'll use 'rising infrastructure costs' to raise prices and get away with it like everyone else. The only way to cap prices is real genuine competition and that will be gone if you get your way. Sure there'll be one or two other companies out there but they'll all price themselves similarly like they all do. One raises prices the others follow suit. How convenient. So where will the competition be then? At the moment we can and do use the BBC frequently if we don't like anything else and we're (on the whole) free of media manipulation. They go it all changes.

Surely the whole entire basis for this debate should be about how the BBC could reduce fees and wastage and introduce a system that's fairer to all and keep us ALL happy? But you won't get into that debate because you just want it scrapped, period. It's very small picture thinking. I'm not willing to risk what could be because once you go down that route (and again if you actually read up about certain organisational strategies that's unequivocally what will happen) there is no going back. It's just not worth the risk.

You keep saying as does Cleany that we’re all saying it’s a conspiracy?! Where an earth are you getting that idea from? If you read up about Murdoch’s strategy you’ll very quickly realise it’s actually factual! He wants us to pay for content. He also openly mocks the BBC and wants it gone. No one’s saying there’s any conspiracy. What I’m saying is that too many fat cats want the Beeb out the way because it’s currently blocking them from making a hell of a lot more money and having over all domination of what we watch. Also the BBC voices a different opinon. If they go and the market becomes fairly well dominated by one (or even two) companies it becomes harder to hear other sides to a story. I don’t get why you’re finding that so hard to understand, even in theory. You just say well it’s still a choice. That’s absolutely no basis for a decent discussion.