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

richy_rich_2

As we have digital tv from various companies, im sure the bbc could follow suit and basically if you dont pay you dont watch. I rarely watch or listen to any bbc brodcasts and would happily see it removed from my tv in order to save myself much needed money in my household.

Of course this will never be done as the bbc has convinced the powers that be that they are a british institution and provide a most essential service, despite the number of channels now available, this is so that they can keep their over inflated wage packets

carlw

glossyhair wrote: »

I think most F1 fans care!
It was always very tiresome to have the action constantly interrupted by commercial breaks :eek::eek:

Well how do ITV and sky manage to show so much other sport then, your argument suggest the BBC should then have all the sport, perhaps they should stick the licence fee up to £245 and have an independent sports channel so we don’t have any adds during a sports event, as not everyone is a F1 fan. Commercial channels on Sky, ITV, 4 and 5 manage by having shorter or no adds during the event, but longer adds during the introduction and end.

robin_banks

Reaper wrote: »

I voted yes - commercial channels are obsessed with viewing figures because that is how they attract advertising. It's good to have channels that look beyond that.

Having said that I would prefer to see some cutbacks. There are too many radio stations and too much online content - BBC news is great but apart from that I would only like to see content where it is genuinely useful (eg recipes featured in a cookery program), not waffley "magazine" or "fan" sites.

And they are desperate to attract advertising, at peak times up to 30% of airtime is ads, which for some reason seem tot be louder than actual programming.

It has an effect on program content - it must do.

Imagine a documentary highlighting the murky world of beauty products and how the claims amongst other things to 'reverse aging of the skin' are nothing short of outright lies.

Can you seriously imagine the likes of L'Oreal paying for advertising on a channel that broadcasts such a program. It's happened in magazines so wht wouldn't it happen with TV?.

A licence fee/subscription ain't ideal but it is the least bad option.

The sky bundle represents much poorer value at a higher price and with adverts - work that funker out.

robin_banks

carlw wrote: »

Well how do ITV and sky manage to show so much other sport then, your argument suggest the BBC should then have all the sport, perhaps they should stick the licence fee up to £245 and have an independent sports channel so we don’t have any adds during a sports event, as not everyone is a F1 fan. Commercial channels on Sky, ITV, 4 and 5 manage by having shorter or no adds during the event, but longer adds during the introduction and end.

ITV show sport, so few watch it. Check out the respective World Cup final viewing figures on the two channels.

rapido

. .

dannynolan

Why no option for, 'I believe the BBC should be subscription only'?

If the BBC is so wonderful let the people who want it pay for it.

I don't want it - why should I pay for it.

borkid

lucylucky wrote: »

If she does not need a licence fee then she has no need to pay it. Save some money for goodness sake. No one will fine her for anything as she is doing no wrong.

I've tried this tack with her but too much pressure to do things causes her to relapse. She is just over 1 relapse which lasted 18months and for 6 weeks of that she was nearly bedbound definitely housebound. I'll keep trying though in a very low key way.

bobcoates

The real issue for my mind is that in the UK we have the best TV probably anywhere in the world.
Iknow plenty will disagree with that statement but my answer tho that is get out more!
I am reminded of this everytime I visit countries like Australia, USA, Canada, New Zealand.
I never forget being in Washington State a few years back and noticed it was not possible to get anything other than State News. No "national" US news and forget world news. So while in a Tourist Info place I asked "how can you get to see decend news on TV here?".
Both assistants replied in unison "6pm BBC World Service News".
So, whatever it is, however it's funded, the UK is doing it right, so keep the status quo.

lucylucky

borkid wrote: »

I've tried this tack with her but too much pressure to do things causes her to relapse. She is just over 1 relapse which lasted 18months and for 6 weeks of that she was nearly bedbound definitely housebound. I'll keep trying though in a very low key way.

Tell her she can buy herself something nice with the £145.50 she will be saving - she does not need a licence.

Canute

The BBC collects the licence fee ONLY in the UK. It broadcasts elsewhere in the world for free - or are we paying for that as well? My main objection is purely personal - I pay the fee BUT I am unable to receive the programmes in Europe - not even on bbciplayer - apart from radio. I understand that the EU has declared that residents should be able to access their own country's TV channels. It is a fact that no one has to pay a licence fee to watch previous live re-broadcasts. Question - does that include all the repeats? The legislation concerning the licence fee and the BBC needs changed. Surely as things stand at present when on the European mainland access to the programmes via the internet should just be a matter of logging in with your licence fee serial number on iplayer or is that too simple!