Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

alb0679

May I just throw something into the hat on this debate ?

Excuse me for my ignorance,

alb0679

May I just throw something into the hat on this debate ?
I posted last night that I am completely against the license fee, but I have maybe aired my view with a certain amount of ignorance. Am I to presume that the license fee is applied to a household simply because they have a TV set which is capable of receiving BBC transmissions ? If this is the case, then surely in this age where we can track someones "general" whereabouts, even if they have their mobile phone simply switched on in standby, then we can use technology to devise a system whereby the Beeb can encrypt their transmissions so we can choose whether or not we receive them.

Another thing on my comment last night. I am an ex serviceman, and through circumstances I "lived" from Monday to Friday in a barrack type accommodation on a military camp. My wife and daughter lived in our family home elsewhere, to which I commuted when possible. I was forced to buy a second license for my single room military accommodation. Just imagine......... X thousand service personnel in single room barracks, X thousand university students in single room halls of residence, X thousand student nurses in single room on site accommodation, all at £135.50 a time.
No wonder the Beeb can give Wossy and Wogan a kings ransom, while treating us with contempt by broadcasting the likes of Dance X.
( In the interest of fairness before I sign off though, 10 out of 10 for Attenborough and the natural history ! )

Tetsuko

What do you think?

I'm thinking of publishing a weekly magazine. I'm not going to bother with putting advertising in it because I'm going to charge everyone who receives it roughly £3.00 a copy, say £156 a year...a bargain. It's quality goods mate. I'll be cutting me own throat.

The clever bit is that I'm going to put a copy through everyone's door in the country and then charge them for receiving it. Everyone who has a letter box or accidently leaves a window open will be forced to recieve a copy. Genius

If they don't don't cough up the cash I'll just threaten to have the occupier put in prison. In fact I might even make them pay 6 months in advance.

Some people might eventually try to claim they don't read it or they don't like the cheap stories and celebrity filled/real life pap that's in it. If that starts to happen I'll get the government :kisses3: to declare it to be a tax on the delivery of the magazine as opposed to a payment for the magazine in return for publishing their agenda. Then I'm guarenteed a nice cushy income for the foreseeable future. Luvvly Jubbly :j

Who needs a real job. :cool:

:rotfl:

impy78

Defiant wrote: »

Everyone has different likes and dislikes for instance I wouldn't like something you enjoy because you need millions of people to be forced into paying for it.

What's all this "forced" nonsense? No one has forced anyone to buy a TV at the BBC. You can actually live quite healthily without one. More healthily in fact.

A television is NOT an essential part of being alive. If you don't want to pay the licence fee, make your voice heard by not buying one.

Otherwise: you knew about the licence fee you bought the thing, so stop your infernal whinging.

troublewithnames

Personally I answered yes - because it is worth it - TO ME. However, I do disagree with the practice of making people pay for a service that they don't necessarily want. If the BBC were to go to a subscription based payment method, I'd say bring it on. It seems much fairer to me than a blanket charge to everyone whether they want the channels or not. Having said that however, the primary reason I agreed it was worth it to me is not BBC TV, it's BBC radio. The sooner they separate the two and allow me to pay for the radio only, the better I say. There are times that I despair of some of the programming choices that are being made on the BBC TV channels, not to mention (as I believe someone else already has) the increased use of pointless profanity being shown (I'm 24 in case anyone is wondering). I would also dispute the argument that BBC reporting is unbiased and impartial. Perhaps it was once, but not any more. Having said that, it's better than ITV's by a country mile. The last time I saw a news broadcast on ITV3, I immediately sat down at the computer and wrote an email of complaint regarding both the style and content, and I vowed never to watch it again. For some reason, they didn't write back.

nothingisforfree

Defiant wrote: »

This years increase in the TV Licence and the sales so in simple terms basic math

So this £4.5 billion isn't the cost of the TV licence fee then.
What is it then?

I'll save you the trouble it is actually £3.1 billion on the last published but hey lets not get a few facts in the way.

nothingisforfree

westernpromise wrote: »

Who on earth are the muppets who think there are no ads on the BBC? The BBC is absolutely packed with ads - ads for the BBC website, ads for BBC radio, ads for BBC competitions, ads for other BBC channels, ads for other BBC programmes and (until forced by a court ruling to stop) ads for the BBC Radio Times.

The ads aren't limited to the space between programmes either - much of the time, the ads start during the credits at the end of the programme.

People have been conditioned into thinking that these aren't ads because they're for the BBC rather than for soap powder and credit cards. But ads they most certainly are and if they were all banned you would find the BBC's market share fell still further.

The BBC gets about 20% of the TV audience on average. That means that if the full cost of its operation were billed only to those who actually use it, the licence fee wouldn't be a bargainous £135 but more like £700 a year. It is only "cheap" and "good value" and all the other tosh because the rest of us are forced to pay for it on pain of criminal conviction whether we use it or not. Did you know the BBC poll tax is the biggest cause of imprisonment of single mothers? About 1,500 single mothers go to prison every year because they didn't pay to keep Islington media luvvies in cappuccino and polenta.

On that basis, anything used by 1 person in 5 and subsidised by the other 4 is going to look "cheap", but it ain't.

Can we also dismiss the ludicrous argument that it's "only 35p a day"? You can make any tax sound cheap by dividing it by 365. How about doing it the other way round though and adding up what it costs you over your lifetime. What's the lifetime cost of your TV poll tax? Well, if you start paying it at 25 and pay it for the next 50 years, then at a compound rate of 5% interest, the cost of the BBC is £30,000 per license payer. Yes, THIRTY THOUSAND POUNDS!! Do we still think that's good value? What would you really rather have - thirty thousand quid or the BBC?

I only get my Sky sports subscriptions as per month. So please Can you do the same calculation for my Sky sports subscription.

Defiant_3

nothingisforfree wrote: »

So this £4.5 billion isn't the cost of the TV licence fee then.
What is it then?

I'll save you the trouble it is actually £3.1 billion on the last published but hey lets not get a few facts in the way.

NO YOU wont save me anything because I've not paid for a BBC TV Licence in 18yrs so I've saved thousands of pounds already and so don't subsidise your viewing habbits mate I'll also point out the figure you have given was last years revenue which was of course before this years £5 increase & you also missed out the sales revenue which was also down to the public being forced to fund it

Defiant_3

impy78 wrote: »

A television is NOT an essential part of being alive. If you don't want to pay the licence fee, make your voice heard by not buying one.

That's right so why are you forcing anyone who wants to watch the news to pay a BBC TV TAX ? Why the hell don't you subsidise my cable TV and those that have Sky ?

Oh and if its not esstential why is the goverment giving FREE tv's and FREE BBC TV Licence's to asylum seekers ?

impy78 wrote: »

Otherwise: you knew about the licence fee you bought the thing, so stop your infernal whinging.

The BBC TV Licence was a great idea 40yrs ago but like everything else times change unfortunately a small minority don't

Defiant_3

sluggy1967 wrote: »

Defiant, does it not occur to you that you are paying to watch the commercial channels? How do you think the adverts are paid for? By passing the cost onto the consumer!!!!

No I've answered this a hundred times already but like a good little BBC troll they keep repeating things because the lack of arguments for the BBC TV Licence.

If I spent £100,000 on adverts and make £1.5 million in sales how exactly has it cost the person watching ITV ?

I suggest you organise a meeting with your fellow BBC colleagues and think of a solid case for a TV Licence instead of well what about adverts or the other opinions yes opinions because thats all they are. The majority of people in this country who don't want the BBC TV Licence shouldn't be forced to pay for it because of what YOU think.

Ps do you have a Washing Machine Licence ?