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

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

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.(?)

It was not you who suggested that you need a licence to own a TV, it was merely me who responded to that erroneous suggestion.

I was clearing up a misconception, no pedantry involved.

As I am happy with the status quo then I have no need to write to anyone about anything.:D

lucylucky

ladynala wrote: »

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!!!!

And where did you get that gem of information?

Freeview - any idea who runs that? Here is a clue, the BBC are involved.

vokesey

kcm wrote: »

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.

I am not anti bbc,as i've said on more than one occasion. And i'm not suggesting people will boycott any one, i simply highlight that they will either accept it moan a bit and carry on (As is the british way.) or they'll get rid and settle for something else. As is there choice.
I dont' view the competitions committee as any kind of knight, but they are there for a reason, i also stated that they don't act unless required to do so, gas prices etc going up has not stifled competition, it has in fact created more so there is no case for them to investigate. Your argument and some others does not only suggest that murdoch wants us to pay for all content but to control it all, that would not be allowed to happen.
I must confess to being a little unsure of what you mean by "all content" All that is available through sky based media ie there tv internet phone etc? Or the airways and all internet as a whole? If it's the later then again i really can't see that being a possibility, as that would be a case for the CC.

traivelinphil

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082722/The-Tories-cut-TV-licence-fee-digital-switchover-savings-says-Cameron-attacks-bloated-BBC.html

bottay

i lived in Oz for the last year and they were shocked to hear that we have to pay for tv! they dont have any licence to pay, then i realised how many adverts were showing on their tv. One night in particular I watched Harry Potter and couldnt believe that there was an advert every 7mins!!! the film took all night to watch! Can you imagine that for every programme!?

willtaylor

If the government scrapped the licence fee it would 'save' each household the cost of a pint of beer or cup of coffee per week and there would be no BBC. If they reduce the licence fee the saving will be even more negligible and the independent BBC will be damaged.

The BBC has declined in quality and innovation since it became obliged to compete for audience numbers. Competition tends to bring similarity not diversity. Think game show or so-called reality programmes. Look at the schedules and try to find something of a different nature at 9 p.m..

The new channels such as BBC3 and BBC4 have produced some programmes worthy of the old BBC. I fear they would be scrapped if the fee were severely reduced.

I think my life would be impoverished without the BBC. I would feel somewhat less worried by the loss of most of the others. Many of the satellite channels consist of repeats of old BBC programmes.

The point of the compulsory licence fee is to provide a national broadcasting service that is not a slave to the government - funded by taxes; nor to commercial interests - funded by advertisements that demand maximum audiences.

It might be a good idea to freeze the licence fee for regular periods (say 5 years, but out of synch with elections) and encourage independence from government without the need for slavish competition. Jonathan Ross would be watched by the same audience if funded by Laboratoire Garnier.

Keep the licence fee it is not a great burden. There are many other actual taxes spent on much less worthy activities. At least the fee has a clearly defined and genuinely ring-fenced purpose.

Will Taylor

stevemcol

Watched Sherlock Holmes on Sunday. Absolutely brilliant and reminds me what the BBC should be all about.

Cleany

kcm wrote: »

You keep saying as does Cleany that we’re all saying it’s a conspiracy?! Where an earth are you getting that idea from?

umm ...

kcm wrote: »

If you read up about Murdoch’s strategy you’ll very quickly realise it’s actually factual!

you're obsessed!

kcm wrote: »

One of the first things people on benefits pay for is Sky!!

what a fantastically ignorant and prejudiced statement. i hope people don't judge the rest of what you say by that.

kcm_2

Cleany wrote: »

umm ...



you're obsessed!



what a fantastically ignorant and prejudiced statement. i hope people don't judge the rest of what you say by that.

Are you for real?

You are more obsessed than I could ever imagine. What the hell does a conspiracy and an *available to see* company strategy have in common????? Do you know what conpiracy actually means???? What a ridiculous comment.

Well if you take that snipet of a conversation I had WITH SOMEONE ELSE and stick it in your context yes it probably sounds awful but then just like everything you don't listen, you twist everything and reply to valuable discussion with "I want choice!" what sensible points have you actually raised? I've tried to give you various senarios of what could happen, and also that aside how we could make the system fairer for all but you ignore all that because you just want it scrapped, sod everyone else. It's impossible to debate anything you and I've long since given up trying. You've seriously SERIOUSLY annoyed with me with your comments which is why I've felt the need to respond.

In the CONTEXT of the conversation I had with someone else I was making a valid point in reference to COST and NOT class or status that people in the UK value Sky and TV in general. It is one of the last things (not for everyone of course but in general) to go when money is tight. Every single one of my friends who are or were on incapacity benefit or sadly made redundant kept sky. Therefore my point replying to someone else's comments that people wouldn't pay for increased costs was that we have and we do. We may adjust our packages but generally Sky stays. What the hell is wrong with that comment? It wasn't even remotely class or status based!!!!! It was about what we will and won't pay for in cost constrained times. Perhaps your own views of people twist it that way but mine are innocent of intent. So dont ever claim I'm ignorant or prejudiced. You are way worse in your refusal to see anyone else's valid points than your own than I could ever be. I'd even said earlier that I'd happily pay more to subsidise costs for the elderly and less well off to make the system more fair and I'm certainly nowhere near rich!!!!!!

Cleany

kcm wrote: »

Are you for real?

You are more obsessed than I could ever imagine. What the hell does a conspiracy and an *available to see* company strategy have in common????? Do you know what conpiracy actually means???? What a ridiculous comment.

Well if you take that snipet of a conversation I had WITH SOMEONE ELSE and stick it in your context yes it probably sounds awful but then just like everything you don't listen, you twist everything and reply to valuable discussion with "I want choice!" what sensible points have you actually raised? I've tried to give you various senarios of what could happen, and also that aside how we could make the system fairer for all but you ignore all that because you just want it scrapped, sod everyone else. It's impossible to debate anything you and I've long since given up trying. You've seriously SERIOUSLY annoyed with me with your comments which is why I've felt the need to respond.

In the CONTEXT of the conversation I had with someone else I was making a valid point in reference to COST and NOT class or status that people in the UK value Sky and TV in general. It is one of the last things (not for everyone of course but in general) to go when money is tight. Every single one of my friends who are or were on incapacity benefit or sadly made redundant kept sky. Therefore my point replying to someone else's comments that people wouldn't pay for increased costs was that we have and we do. We may adjust our packages but generally Sky stays. What the hell is wrong with that comment? It wasn't even remotely class or status based!!!!! It was about what we will and won't pay for in cost constrained times. Perhaps your own views of people twist it that way but mine are innocent of intent. So dont ever claim I'm ignorant or prejudiced. You are way worse in your refusal to see anyone else's valid points than your own than I could ever be. I'd even said earlier that I'd happily pay more to subsidise costs for the elderly and less well off to make the system more fair and I'm certainly nowhere near rich!!!!!!

I think what you need to understand is that you and others find it difficult to accept an argument contrary to your position without categorising it as part of something that Rupert Murdoch is doing. Let me ask you, if you're not obsessed with it as I said, what reason is there to mention it in this forum topic at all? The only reason can be that my opinion, and others have been swayed by Rupert Murdoch.

What is ridiculous is that you are so annoyed about it, when you are the one that brought it up in the first place. The only reason I have mentioned the apparent influence of Rupert Murdoch on the first place is in response to the many comments, including yours, about it.

Lets get it straight. My opinion has nothing to do with Rupert Murdoch or some campaign, conspiracy or not, against the BBC. It is purely to do having to pay only the BBC to watch TV when they make mostly rubbish TV. If you don't want to get annoyed I suggest you stop mentioning Rupert Murdoch, and let other people's opinions stand on their own merit.

As for your comment about people on benefits, you can try to get out of it by saying that what you said was based on your own personal experience, but you know what you said and if you're annoyed it should be at yourself for the way you expressed yourself.

What you have said in reply to my pointing out your comments my well be what you meant to say, but it isn't what you actually said. Why don't you read your soundbite again to yourself and try to understand how it comes across?