Should the TV licence fee be scrapped? 29 October 2013 at 1:11PM in MoneySaving polls 97 replies 8.3K views

Former_MSE_Debs

Poll started 29 Oct 2013

A TV licence costs £145.50 a year for any home with a colour TV, regardless of whether you watch the BBC or not (see TV Licence Saving). But all the money raised pays for the BBC - that's TV, radio, regional programmes, BBC Online and their associated costs (full details).

Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps sent a warning shot to the BBC this week about the licence fee, saying he would consider opening up the cash so other broadcasters could apply for some.

Which of the options in this week's poll is closest to your view?

Vote in this week's poll

Did you vote? Why did you pick that option? Are you surprised at the results so far? Have your say below clicking reply to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide .

To see the results from last time, click this.

laptop80

At the moment, 57% of people have voted to scrap the licence fee and have the BBC funded by ads.

It's a shame that people no longer value the BBC as being different from commercial broadcasters like ITV, but that's probably the fault of the BBC themselves.

Years ago I would've argued that the BBC was a lot more than just ITV without the adverts, but as they've actively tried to compete with shows like the X-Factor by putting out their own dross I don't think you can really say that anymore.

They have done so to justify the licence fee, e.g. "We're making TV that people want to watch - look at our great viewing figures" but all it has really done is removed some of the reason for it to exist. I don't care what anyone says - it's not in the public interest to vomit Hole in the Wall over our TV screens just to take eyeballs away from whatever rubbish ITV happens to be putting on at the time. The BBC's job shouldn't be to act as a tabloid and give people whatever will catch their interest for 5 minutes.

Personally, I think the BBC website is worth most of the licence fee on its own, but with shockingly low quality TV output (e.g. any current BBC comedy you could care to mention) and their impartiality when reporting on the news called into question, I can see why people begrudge paying it.

Mulder00

I think it is unfair towards people who don't watch or don't want to watch BBC to be forced into paying for it and think that practice should immediately stop.

I would however not mind at all to continue paying to actually watch the BBC (thus on a subscription basis). The only problem I foresee already is that there will be many "unsubscribers" causing a loss in revenue and therefore a loss in programming quality (unless they start agreeing to a little bit of advertising??).

mjm3346

You are missing an important (money saving) option

scrap the licence fee and fund from general taxation

That would get rid off all the costs and resources involved in collection of the fee, court time for evaders etc so the total cost of providing the same income would be less, the massive TV licence database could also be deleted and retailers would not have to waste time getting TV buyers details to pass them on.
With the growth of "catch-up tv" the licence will soon have to be extended anyway, probably to include broadband, to maintain the same level of income.

sntsj268

Something I feel very strongly about and the main issue I have with the licence fee, though there are a few, is lack of impartiality and the fact the BBC is really a government conduit for whatever spin they want to put out on any particular story. Licence funded BBC = government puppet.

kaya

They want to stop funding the peadophiles ? Whatever next, you'll be telling me they were all high on coke at the taxpayers expense in the 70's and 80's ! Oh wait, they were weren't they :-)
The licence fee was granted royal consent to the BBC , the fact that the Beeb think you should pay them a fee to watch other completely unrelated channels now or face imprisonment and hefty fines shows how corrupt it has become , good riddance to bad rubbish!

Cornucopia

People can see with their own viewing eyes that very little of what the BBC does is truly distinctive. (In reality it often insists on "me too" TV, having seen something working on another channel, which there is no excuse for).

If you took C4 group, ITV, Sky Atlantic & Arts, there can't be much left that the BBC has genuinely all to itself - perhaps they are able to spend just that little bit more on films and docs for BBC Four than anyone else can, but that's probably it.

Personally, I don't see a lot of party political bias on the BBC. Certain presenters can't seem to resist putting down whatever hapless politician happens to be in front of them at the time, and whilst I think that's pretty pointless, it does seem to be party balanced.

I do perceive bias in the "big issues". The BBC has an active agenda with Climate Change, Multiculturalism, Europe, America, and the Middle East. Whilst any of those issues are open to multiple legitimate angles, I don't think the BBC should be taking sides (more often than not from a left-liberal perspective).

Add to all of that the questionable legality and social (ir)responsibility of its Licence Fee enforcement regime, and I think there is plenty of reason to look for reform of the BBC.

trollopscarletwoman

Am I correct in thinking that if you only watch programmes on the various computer i players then a licence is not required?


Because of the delay!

If I had my way I wouldn't have one. The mrs is frightened of the knock on the door.

Cornucopia

trollopscarletwoman wrote: »

Am I correct in thinking that if you only watch programmes on the various computer i players then a licence is not required?

Because of the delay!

If I had my way I wouldn't have one.

You don't need a licence if you only watch pre-recorded stuff (DVDs, Video Games) or Catch-up (iPlayer,40D etc.)

You need a licence if you watch or record TV broadcasts.

The mrs is frightened of the knock on the door.

That's not a great reason. And they have no real powers, anyway.

Zanandu

When the BBC was founded it was the only television channel. The programmes were original and worth watching. Now considering how much we pay for the license and how often I watch the BBC I personally don't think they offer value for money. A lot of the programmes are repeats. I would rather put up with adverts and have extra money in my pocket. As for the radio, yes again, and also on line, I don't mind putting up with adverts.

ElkyElky

mjm3346 wrote: »

You are missing an important (money saving) option

scrap the licence fee and fund from general taxation

That would get rid off all the costs and resources involved in collection of the fee, court time for evaders etc so the total cost of providing the same income would be less, the massive TV licence database could also be deleted and retailers would not have to waste time getting TV buyers details to pass them on.
With the growth of "catch-up tv" the licence will soon have to be extended anyway, probably to include broadband, to maintain the same level of income.

Retailers don't need to inform TVL anymore. That was abolished some months ago.

Not sure if retailers in practice have stopped asking customers for their information when purchasing a TV but they're no longer required to by law. If a retailer does, then the customer should shop elsewhere in my opinion.

The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1967 (as amended) has been repealed, meaning that from 25 June 2013 onwards you no longer need to send us customer name and address details when you sell or rent out TV equipment. This also means your business no longer has to keep sales records to comply with the law on TV Licensing. If you don’t need these records for anything else you can destroy them from 25 June.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/business-and-organisations/tv-dealers-aud18/