Ban the TV Licence

Twiggy_34

drbraindead wrote: »

For thoes who enjoy the BBC and do not mind paying it, let them carry on. Make the BBC a subscription channel just like others.

But why should a large portion of the population pay for something they do not want.

I agree with this statement. It should be a subscription fee where those who do not wish to pay to watch BBC channels don't have to and therefore cannot view those channels, rather than forcing everybody to pay a fee AND endure adverts on the channels that they actually do want to watch.

As things currently stand I do watch BBC channels and don't honestly know whether I would choose to pay to continue or not. I could happily live without them but, assuming the fee didn't increase if it became a subscription service, I'd probably pay for it as the cost is small compared to other TV subscription services. Of course if fewer people were 'subscribed' it's inevitable that the cost would increase...

Cornucopia

My issue is not so much with the BBC as it is with the enforcement of the fee (as overseen by the BBC).

As a society, I think we are more than capable of taking a democratic decision as to whether we need publicly-funded, public service broadcasting. I suspect if the public were given a free choice, the answer would be no. The reason being that the success and diversity of British broadcasting means that there is very little that the BBC does that is not available elsewhere. (Driven in part by the success of ad-funded, public service broadcaster C4). There's also every reason to expect that commercial interests would rush to fill any gaps left by the BBC.

However, whilst we have the Licence Fee, there are a few important questions that need to be answered by the BBC about its approach to enforcement...

1. Why is the TV licence the only aspect of UK tax/law enforcement where citizens are expected to endure random inspections of their homes? Surely if this sort of thing is deemed palatable, we should start with serious offences like drug dealing (roll out the detector dogs)? (And if we don't, are we really saying that drug dealers have more rights than people who legally don't need a TV licence?)

2. Who decides on the wording and frequency of the threatening letters sent by BBC-TV Licensing? What (legitimate) public policy objective are they trying to achieve by sending such acrimonious letters every month to certain households?

3. What is the Governance behind this law enforcement activity? The Government has denied any responsibility, and the BBC Trust has said that their role is very limited. In which case there exists in the UK a publicly-funded law enforcement activity that has little or no democratic accountability.

4. The way that enforcement works makes it a vast conflict of interest issue - from the "big" conflict of interest where the BBC is both beneficiary and enforcer; to the "little" conflict of interest where poorly supervised field staff are paid commission on licence sales and offences reported.

andrewf75

drbraindead wrote: »

It really is that absurd.

I agree the way its presented as a "license" is absurd.

But each household paying £130 or whatever it is per year to fund a world-leading service isn't. Many countries have a state broadcasting service and pay for it - and none are in the same class as the Beeb. Its one of our greatest institutions and we'd be a lot poorer if we had to rely on commercial media.

I'd just take it from general taxation. Increase income tax by 0.1% or whatever if need be. The proportion of people using BBC services must be in the high 90s % and you can easily argue that the country as a whole benefits from it even for those few who don't use it.

Cornucopia

andrewf75 wrote: »

But each household paying £130 or whatever it is per year to fund a world-leading service isn't. Many countries have a state broadcasting service and pay for it - and none are in the same class as the Beeb. Its one of our greatest institutions and we'd be a lot poorer if we had to rely on commercial media.

I agree that there might be some niche areas where the BBC offers something genuinely unique. However, the vast bulk of its output, and a huge proportion of its viewer-hours is virtually indistinguishable from other broadcasters.

Given the issues with enforcement outlined above, I simply don't think that the marginal benefit of the BBC can be justified against that background.

Prothet_of_Doom

There are 3 questions.

1) Should the BBC be publicly Funded ?
2) If not publicly funded how should it be paid for ?
3) If is should be paid for by the public how should we pay for it ?

I think the UK public should fund the BBC, but I think there are more effective and efficient ways of raising the cash.

Like reducing the point where you pay tax from £9440 to £9000 ?
Or making VAT on Internet use 25% instead of 20%
Or by taxing Pay per View TV at 50%
or by reducing the Old age pension by £150 a year
or by having a tax on screens.

adr0ck

I've not voted as i'm sort of in the middle.

I don't mind paying the TV license however in my opinion:

All BBC back catalog should be available on iplayer to everyone with a TV License - and I mean all back catalog - not just what was on TV last week etc

The BBC should have a limit on presenters pay etc - it should be a starting ground with established 'stars' then moving to other companies if they want better pay.

tara747

I happily pay the licence fee each year. Of all the taxes leved on us, it is the only one that represents value for money imho.

The BBC is far superior to any other free-to-air TV channel in the world. It's worth £145 a year for David Attenborough alone. Add in the radio and web services, the occasional excellent drama, documentaries, comedy, current affairs, and shows such as Pointless (an underrated gem). It's worth every penny.

Nobody is forcing you to use broadcast services (and thus to pay the TV licence).

drbraindead wrote: »

Or TV tax as it should be called.

Why on earth should anyone be forced by the goverment to pay to watch broadcasted video.

I do not like the BBC and already pay to watch programmes I do like, although I will be only watching DVDs soon.

Many people could save a lot of money without this vile tax.

Update: As I would like to not carry this on and on with pointless replys, I have added a poll. A vote will be a fair solution.

I respect everyones opinion and thank everyone who will take part.

Pointless replies?

Translation: some people don't agree with me, so I will resort to insulting them.

Lovely.

penrhyn

A poorly designed poll.
If you don't want the BBC to be funded by the licence fee, then you must offer alternatives.
BBC should be funded by advertising.
BBC should become a subscription service, etc.
BBC should be closed down.

DCodd

Cornucopia wrote: »

I agree that there might be some niche areas where the BBC offers something genuinely unique. However, the vast bulk of its output, and a huge proportion of its viewer-hours is virtually indistinguishable from other broadcasters.

Given the issues with enforcement outlined above, I simply don't think that the marginal benefit of the BBC can be justified against that background.

BBC research and development have and still do lead the way in some areas. They were a pioneer in satelite broadcasting for a start so all the SKY viewers have a lot to thank them for.

Your current and future television experience has a lot to thank the BBC for and probably will do for years to come.

andrewf75

adr0ck wrote: »

The BBC should have a limit on presenters pay etc - it should be a starting ground with established 'stars' then moving to other companies if they want better pay.

I do agree with that

By all means go up to 100-200k salaries, but not up to the 500-600k level.