Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

squirreltufty

Defiant wrote: »

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

Don't worry mate, they'll catch up with you soon.:D How are you enjoying the current series of Dr Who by the way?

westernpromise

nothingisforfree wrote: »

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

Sure - how much are you forced to pay Sky on threat of prison?

Defiant_3

squirreltufty wrote: »

Don't worry mate, they'll catch up with you soon.:D How are you enjoying the current series of Dr Who by the way?

Catch up with me ? One came round the other day and as usual I shown him the door You see unless you give them information they can't prove anything and I've been doing this for 18yrs m8. You know something though I'd rather go to prison than be forced to subsidise your viewing habbits

westernpromise

It's funny, isn't it, that it is absolutely impossible to get any license fee apologist to acknowledge how the BBC manages to be such great "value". It's because 4 out of 5 TV viewers don't use it but they're still forced to pay for it.

This point is always evaded. The BBC is not cheap. It costs about £700 a year per viewer, who only has to pay one-fifth of that amount.

The other iniquitous point about the BBC is that it is for all intents and purposes totally unaccountable. If I don't like the anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-business, pro-UN, pro-Green, pro-left tone of its news coverage I can't cancel my subscription and take my money elsewhere. I'm still forced to buy it. Because of the unique way it is funded, the BBC can flip the finger at anyone who complains about it and there is nothing you can do.

I'm currently in rented accommodation and my rental agreement forces me to have a license, presumably because the landlord doesn't want the BBC to be allowed to force its way in. As soon as I buy again, I shall simply stop paying - they cannot actually get evidence against you unless you give it to them and their so-called detector van evidence has never been used in court (presumably because the BBC thinks it's inadmissible).

gizzydump

I have some sympathy with those who say they do not watch BBC and therefore should not pay a licence fee BUT what about all the other public services that they may or may not use but they still pay for out of local or national taxation?
for example: public parks, public conveniences, museums, libraries, schools, hospitals etc. Are they going to opt out of these as well?

The “licence fee” is surely an outdated concept and perhaps much of the emotion would disappear if a public service via TV Radio and Internet was funded from general taxation. Incidentally I understand that 20% of the licence fee is wasted in administering the system ie collecting from those who pay, sorting out those who don’t have to pay and chasing those should pay but don’t!

The BBC’s declared purpose is “To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain” which is a concept I think we should support in order to maintain some quality standards. However, I agree that it should cut back on the “entertain” purpose and stop showing the stuff which the commercial channels already provide such as soaps, quiz shows etc.

I do however think it should increase it’s coverage of some of the minority interests eg sports which are never going to get an airing on commercial TV and perhaps abandon the idea of trying to outbid the commercial sports channels. This would save even more money. I also agree that it should not be necessary to pay so called celebrities silly money to front programmes - another saving.

So, if Auntie cut out the rubbish and kept true to its purpose, we could have a valued public service, free from commercials, funded from general taxation at less cost than now. This could then be accepted as a “free” public service like all the others we enjoy and everyone could stop whinging.

Defiant_3

gizzydump wrote: »

BUT what about all the other public services that they may or may not use but they still pay for out of local or national taxation?
for example: public parks, public conveniences, museums, libraries, schools, hospitals etc. Are they going to opt out of these as well?

This is another taken straight from the BBC pitches but note they don't mention that the true public services (not TV) don't have any commercial alternatives :rolleyes:

gizzydump wrote: »

The “licence fee” is surely an outdated concept and perhaps much of the emotion would disappear if a public service via TV Radio and Internet was funded from general taxation.

NO why can't you people realise WE DON'T WANT TO SUBSIDISE YOUR TELEVISION VIEWING HABBITS!

gizzydump wrote: »

Incidentally I understand that 20% of the licence fee is wasted in administering the system ie collecting from those who pay, sorting out those who don’t have to pay and chasing those should pay but don’t!

So you'd be more than happy to pay via subscription and everyone else has the choice then don't they

gizzydump wrote: »

The BBC’s declared purpose is “To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain” which is a concept I think we should support in order to maintain some quality standards. However, I agree that it should cut back on the “entertain” purpose and stop showing the stuff which the commercial channels already provide such as soaps, quiz shows etc.

Well you'd have more say if it went subscription wouldn't you

gizzydump wrote: »

So, if Auntie cut out the rubbish and kept true to its purpose, we could have a valued public service, free from commercials, funded from general taxation at less cost than now. This could then be accepted as a “free” public service like all the others we enjoy and everyone could stop whinging.

Bangs head on wall at the arrogant attitude of the pro tv tax people who just refuse to accept we don't want to be forced into paying for their beloved BBC :mad:

Oh and please don't extract the urine by trying to say paying by general taxation would be free.

I'd love to see some of the IP ranges here because I'd bet money some are within the BBC range

ckerrd

Defiant - never heard of private schools, private hospitals, private gardens etc etc?

As I said in a previous post I don't think the licence fee can survive in its present form for much longer. Not sure what will replace it but perhaps the BBC programmes, on TV Radio and its online content could be scrambled and it could become subscription only? Might end up being the way it goes. Or the licence fee will be split and some money given to other broadcasters, as was proposed recently before the last round of licence fee negotiations.

There is much complaint, rightly in my view, from others that the BBC has a guaranteed income of which they can only dream, but until you dismantle the system not a lot can be done.

If the BBC was to become subscription and you could choose then I doubt I would choose the TV services as there is not much on there that interests me at all. However I suspect the choice would be much like MR Murdochs. i.e. his choices. If I could truly choose the channels I do watch on the BSkyB platform then I would be happier.

Defiant, sorry another question - what is an IP range?

Defiant_3

ckerrd wrote: »

Defiant - never heard of private schools, private hospitals, private gardens etc etc?

Oh wait a minute now are the pro BBC people trying to say the BBC is more inportant then our futures eduction ? Are they trying to say the places our children play in are & our countries health is less inportant than what they wish to watch at our expense ?

ckerrd wrote: »

As I said in a previous post I don't think the licence fee can survive in its present form for much longer. Not sure what will replace it but perhaps the BBC programmes, on TV Radio and its online content could be scrambled and it could become subscription only?

Oh I wish just think of all those people who will be paying for their beloved BBC by themselves for a change

ckerrd wrote: »

Might end up being the way it goes. Or the licence fee will be split and some money given to other broadcasters, as was proposed recently before the last round of licence fee negotiations.

When/If the government decide what PSB content really is and if we the public should be forced to pay for it they should put each series out to bid so the public get a better deal

ckerrd wrote: »

If the BBC was to become subscription and you could choose then I doubt I would choose the TV services as there is not much on there that interests me at all. However I suspect the choice would be much like MR Murdochs. i.e. his choices. If I could truly choose the channels I do watch on the BSkyB platform then I would be happier.

Same here isn't CHOICE a great thing to have

ckerrd wrote: »

Defiant, sorry another question - what is an IP range?

BBC has a range of IP's and I only know that because they've visited my site a few times now

westernpromise

gizzydump wrote: »

I have some sympathy with those who say they do not watch BBC and therefore should not pay a licence fee BUT what about all the other public services that they may or may not use but they still pay for out of local or national taxation?
for example: public parks, public conveniences, museums, libraries, schools, hospitals etc. Are they going to opt out of these as well?

Why should the state be in the entertainment business at all? How is "Deal or No Deal", or Jonathan Woss' £18million wage package, an essential public need, like hospitals?

If it is appropriate for everyone to be taxed to fund a state TV station, there should logically also be state newspapers, state pubs, state restaurants, and state theme parks - all funded by compulsory license fees. If you want to buy the Sun, you should be made to pay for the Guardian too, and if you won't pay for the Guardian then you can't read any newspaper at all.

If the BBC is such good value, make it all go pay-per-view. If the BBC shills are right, and people really would pay the license fee for Radio 4 alone (or whatever the usual guff is), then it's seriously underpriced at £135. So those who like the BBC will be happy to pay £700 a year for it, and the rest of us can save our money. Everyone would be happy, especially you BBC fans who'd no longer need to feel ashamed of yourselves for sending single mothers to prison so that you can enjoy EastEnders on the cheap.

ckerrd

Defiant wrote: »

Oh wait a minute now are the pro BBC people trying to say the BBC is more inportant then our futures eduction ? Are they trying to say the places our children play in are & our countries health is less inportant than what they wish to watch at our expense ?



Oh I wish just think of all those people who will be paying for their beloved BBC by themselves for a change



When/If the government decide what PSB content really is and if we the public should be forced to pay for it they should put each series out to bid so the public get a better deal
Doubt that will happen but you never know



Same here isn't CHOICE a great thing to have
Shame none of the broadcasters give you it, isn't it



BBC has a range of IP's and I only know that because they've visited my site a few times now

Think I understand now. You reckon that some BBC people are posting on here. Could be I suppose, not sure what the internal policy might be on that.

And re your first point I was only saying that there were private alternatives to some of the things mentioned. You seemed to indicate that there weren't but I may have misunderstood your post.