Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?

Jennifer_Jane

I'm retired and not on a very high income, but am happy to pay the TV licence fee to get the quality of programmes we usually have, without vile advertising (and I used to be in advertising and marketing). Also, the programmes would be designed to ratings-chase - so definitely would be a race to the bottom!

So 'Breakfast' vs 'Jeremy Kyle'?

Just think of what is on TV currently:
Wallandar (BBC4)
Line of Duty (BBC1)
The Hollow Crown (BBC2)
Panorama/The Daily Politics/This Week/University Challenge and so on. I have to use iPlayer to get to see all the programmes I am interested in.

I could go on, but as someone who spends their life with the TV ON and most of my time at home, I know pretty much that I would hate to have more TV channels that were like ITV.

What I would like, is for the licence fee to be better spent - the presenters earning over £500,000 are just not worth it (including Paxman). Let them leave, and invest the money in great dramas, thrillers, documentaries, etc.

manric

Paying for Tv license in this era is ridiculous!! you know what - ohh. govt needs funds. lets ask for Radio license fee ! :-)

Crabman

The BBC's licence fee (just over £12 a month) seems like good value compared with the most basic Sky subscription (even taking into account their retention deals). Yet Sky not only take your subscription cash but also interrupt each 60 minutes of imported US programme content with around 20 minutes of adverts.

As for comments about introducing the ad-funded model, what would happen to ITV, Channel 4 & 5? Advertisers would leap at the opportunity to advertise on the BBC due to generally higher audience figures.

What would that mean for other ad-funded channels? They're already having issues with a lack of advertising. Would these issues worsen or improve if the BBC opened its massive doors to the advertising market?

mgarl10024

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18702085
"The BBC Trust said Mr Entwistle would be paid an annual salary of £450,000."

http://www.averageuksalary.co.uk/uk-salary-statistics/
"The 2011 median gross annual earnings for full-time employees was £26,244"

That's 17x the average person.
Astonishing at a time of austerity.

HappyMJ

Crabman wrote: »

The BBC's licence fee (just over £12 a month) seems like good value compared with the most basic Sky subscription (even taking into account their retention deals). Yet Sky not only take your subscription cash but also interrupt each 60 minutes of imported US programme content with around 20 minutes of adverts.

As for comments about introducing the ad-funded model, what would happen to ITV, Channel 4 & 5? Advertisers would leap at the opportunity to advertise on the BBC due to generally higher audience figures.

What would that mean for other ad-funded channels? They're already having issues with a lack of advertising. Would these issues worsen or improve if the BBC opened its massive doors to the advertising market?

No one agrees with 40 minutes program and 20 minutes adverts and UK programs on commercial channels tend to have much less adverts than US programs. You see normally two (12 minute) parts to a UK program and therefore 1 advert break in a 30 minute program where the same 30 minute US program would be split into three (7 minute) parts with 2 advert breaks as well as the breaks between programs.

Jaybo10

I would happily pay more for my licence fee. I think we get an amazing service for the price.

prowla

ViolaLass wrote: »

Do I believe in it?

Well, yes, its existence seems pretty certain to me.

Yes - it's not like Santa and faeries and things...

LindsayReid

Without the licence fee all the Radio and TV programmes that are not commercially viable would disappear and the BBC would go the way of Commercial Radio and TV - mainly mass audience dross.

If it were not for the BBC, there would be no regular TV programmes like Panorama, Question Time and the Daily Politics nor would there be the number of quality drama and science programmes. Radio would lose stations like Radio 4 and Six Music.

Scrapping of the licence fee would force the BBC to chase mass audience ratings and we would lose both quality Television and Radio - local and National. It is bad enough that the BBC feel they have to chase ratings with shows that would be viable on commercial channels. There is little public service need for the BBC to make programmes like Eastenders, Graham Norton, Masterchef and The Voice or run radio services like Radios 1 and 2. Equivalents are already on commercial channels. The BBC feels it has the need to justify the licence fee with these mass audience programmes.

Perhaps the BBC should also stop wasting money on football rights? All that has happened is the cost of such rights has been pushed up and up in a bidding war as Sky and ITV feel they can justify the cost through subscriptions, advertising and sponsorship. Perhaps football should be left to commercial and/or subscription channels so that those who want to watch it pay for it.

Whilst football is popular, the cost to the BBC means that there is less money available for programmes that would not be viable on a commercial or subscription channel. Are Lineker and Hanson really worth paying in excess of £3m a year for presenting along with over a £1m a year for Graham Norton. The BBC should use the licence fee more wisely.

Anyone who says that the BBC should be commercially funded only has to speak to someone who comes from a country like the USA where there is pretty abysmal programming on the commercial channels which are all subject to constant interruption from lengthy commercial breaks of greater frequency than those allowed in the UK. It is already bad enough in the UK with a two hour programme on commercial channels only really containing around 90 minutes. As for news and current affairs, ask an American if they think "Fox News" provides a comprehensive and unbiased view of world events.

There is no simple answer but if it were not for the BBC, the commercial channels would have little to aspire to in terms of quality or originality. We could end up with low end "tabloid style" broadcasting of the very worst kind.

The licence fee currently gets you many many more hours of original programming across TV and Radio for considerably less than some people pay for a basic Sky service without Movies or Sport.

I've ranted long enough !

Meadows

mart67 wrote: »

In principle, i have nothing against the licence fee. However, i don't see why people with low incomes should pay the same as a milionaire. If, for example, there were a 5% tax on new TV equipment, the rich would pay more. Any surplus could go to the UK film industry.

That old chestnut.

I wonder who watches TV the most :think: therefore if any one pays more surely they should!
There will come a point where the rich are not rich as they have to pay more for everything and then who gets lumped with the higher costs?

g0recki

I don't want to see the BBC funded by ads, as quality and variety would go down the pan.

But I don't support the license fee because it's a TV poll tax that demands those who can barely make ends meet to pay the same as a millionaire. Also, over £120 million of BBC money is spent just on collecting the license fee - that would pay for Radio 1, Radio 2 and Radio 6Music combined!

The BBC should be paid for directly by the government through general taxation.