Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

alanben

:rolleyes: I am astounded by the petty arguments put forward by so many people. The BBC may be somewhat old fashioned but largely retains the ability to provide a service (envied by the world) that is so much more than Eastenders. The cost of the license fee is negligible compared to other offerings and the coverage of important events – sporting, national interest etc is second to none.

Many people can afford the license fee who would otherwise be priced out of TV and radio if left to “commercial market forces”. Do we really want a broadcasting choice governed by the Murdoch’s?

The quality and quantity of the BBC’s drama productions and nature programmes, whilst ITV also offers the occasional equally high quality dramas, is fantastic value for money. Largely the BBC maintains its high standards and let’s not forget its contribution to education over the years – continued by the fantastic web-site and the many books, Cd’s and DVD’s.

The beeb provides such a huge range of services for different tastes which no other method of funding could hope to maintain and retain the quality and standards. Please people, think about the BBC services a bit more or I’ll send in Phil Mitchell to sort you out!:mad:

Gallovidian

alanben wrote: »

:rolleyes: The BBC ....... (envied by the world)

:mad:

Yes but not emulated by the world, or any part of it :rolleyes:

Former_MSE_Lawrence

Poll Started 31 July 2007:

Is the BBC licence fee worth it?

The TV licence fee costs £135.50 a year for any home with a colour TV, and pays for the BBC - that's TV, radio, regional programmes and BBC online.

Is it worth it? Which of these is nearest to your view?

A. Yes. The BBC consistently produces quality output. 7% (895 votes)

B. Yes. Mainly due to BBC radio though. 2% (283 votes)

C. Yes. Public service broadcasting as a concept is important. 5% (621 votes)

D. Yes. It's a good buffer against government and tabloid power. 1% (148 votes)

E. Yes. If nothing else just so I don’t have to watch ads. 3% (390 votes)

F. Yes. All of the above. 13% (1538 votes)

G. Yes. Other reason. 1% (73 votes)

H. No. It's too costly, halve the price and its budget. 8% (996 votes)

I. No. The BBC does nothing for me, I'd stop using it to save £135.50. 12% (1500 votes)

J. No. I pay for Sky already, it's ridiculous. 11% (1378 votes)

K. No. Only BBC online is good, and I'd happily see it have ads. 2% (286 votes)

L. No. It's another tax, why should the BBC be so special? 18% (2145 votes)

M. No. All of the above. 13% (1610 votes)

N. No. Other reason. 3% (317 votes)


Total Votes: 12119

Thanks to everybody that voted

Defiant_3

alanben wrote: »

The cost of the license fee is negligible compared to other offerings and the coverage of important events – sporting, national interest etc is second to none.

£135.50 (this year) negligible :rolleyes: Hows that negligible is you don't watch the rubbish ?

alanben wrote: »

Many people can afford the license fee who would otherwise be priced out of TV and radio if left to “commercial market forces”. Do we really want a broadcasting choice governed by the Murdoch’s?

Oh the Murdoch thing this tells me its another BBC employees plus the first post.

The thing is the only people priced out of TV are those who don't wish to pay your mighty BBC £135.50 which means they can't even watch the FTA channels

alanben wrote: »

The quality and quantity of the BBC’s drama productions and nature programmes, whilst ITV also offers the occasional equally high quality dramas, is fantastic value for money.

YOU are the one going on about quantity and the BBC so it's nothing more than an opinion which the BBC employee's have a habbit of putting across like it's gospel

alanben wrote: »

Largely the BBC maintains its high standards and let’s not forget its contribution to education over the years – continued by the fantastic web-site and the many books, Cd’s and DVD’s.

The BBC is something that YOU and the rest of the BBC fans should have been paying for 20yrs ago instead of relying on everyone else to subsidise you and the BBC's expansions

alanben wrote: »

The beeb provides such a huge range of services for different tastes which no other method of funding could hope to maintain and retain the quality and standards. Please people, think about the BBC services a bit more or I’ll send in Phil Mitchell to sort you out!:mad:

Have you finished reading your BBC manual now ? if so how about FREEDOM OF CHOICE :mad:

Defiant_3

Dr_Ali_G wrote: »

Has any one who reads this site ever watched American TV?

Yes they make the best TV in the world and this is something which scares the hell out of those who want the BBC paid for by their next door neighbors rather than themselves

Defiant_3

impy78 wrote: »

People not paying and taking away my future wages are not bad people either!

Gotcha, I knew you worked for them and they always slip up in the end

impy78 wrote: »

I do think there should be a reduction for low income families, in fact, as with many other things, It should be calculated on income and form part of income tax, rather than being a separate thing.

How about it being calculated on those that want your employer ?

alanben

No I'm not employed by the BBC & never have been. I'm an old chap who just appreciates what the beeb offers. I can appreciate that if you don't like good acting, fantastic camera work, wonderful news reporting, music, arts etc -then go over to the USA and watch their wall-wall drivel (with certain exceptions of course).

Just my opinion course;)

westernpromise

guppy wrote: »

One more question for the anti-tv licence people...

Do you not watch the BBC on principle, or do you genuinely hate every single programme on all their radio, tv and internet channels?

You aren't really asking the right question - all you would get is anecdote, and the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

The BBC's actual typical television audience share nowadays is about 20%. That means that, at any given time, only 1 in 5 of those watching TV are watching any BBC channel. All may watch it some of the time, but on average, the BBC attracts only get 20% of the viewers - yet the other 80% have to pay for it too.

This is the context in which all the protestations about supposed "value for money", "quality", etc., have to be put. The BBC is "value for money" only because for everybody who uses it, 4 people don't - but are still forced to pay for it. If it had to be paid for only by those who actually use it, the fee would be 5 times higher, i.e. about £700 a year. Would you still pay for it if you had to pay what it really costs? Would you still consider it cheap? This point is always evaded by apologists for the license fee. I've brought it up several times in this thread, and the pro-BBC brigade have absolutely no answer for it.

The next argument is usually "But the BBC is such good quality!" Well, it might be to others, but it's not to me, and it would seem that on average 80% of the audience begs to differ.

Then we have the "Sky is more expensive" argument. Sky would not be more expensive if funded on the same basis, i.e. everybody who owned a TV had to pay for Sky.

Then we have the "But Murdoch would own everything" argument. Well, so what? If you don't like it, you could vote with your feet and refuse to buy Murdoch's output. This is an option you don't get with the BBC, which you pay for whether you like it or not.

Then there is the "But the BBC is independent" argument. No it's not. Here's Andrew Marr of the BBC on the BBC:-
"The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias."

Here's Rod Liddle (formerly of the BBC) on the BBC:-In fact, there are certain sorts of people whom the BBC thinks it’s all well and good to be fairly nasty to, and...whom the BBC feels that its personnel must roundly abuse or even physically chastise if it is going to give them airtime...In each case, the presenter is required to shout at these people because they are plainly, obviously, horrible — you will remember the Newsnight interview, for example, in which BNP leader, Nick Griffin, was denied the chance to answer a single question….The Scientologists...come in category two — people towards whom the presenter should display contempt, quiet hostility and open dislike, but should not actually punch or scream at. Members of the Conservative party and Ukip, all Israelis other than those who are activists within ‘peace’ groups, evangelistic Christians, supporters of the Countryside Alliance, Roman Catholics, paedophiles and chairmen of multinational corporations are similarly covered by the category two requirements.

Here's Jeremy Paxman of the BBC on the BBC:-"People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago."

I could go on.

Meanwhile, it has proved impossible to get any BBC defender - in any internet debate on this subject, including this thread - to explain why the state should still be in the entertainment business.

Defiant_3

alanben wrote: »

if you don't like good acting, fantastic camera work

Yes I agree watch the BBC but I like all those things so will stick to shows like

24, CSI, Lost, Prison Break, House, Deadwood, 4400, Stargate, Battlestar galactica, Eureka & very much looking forward to Flash Gordon

http://www.scifi.com/flashgordon/

Plus

http://www.nbc.com/Bionic_Woman/

alanben wrote: »

wonderful news reporting

If you aren't employed by the BBC perhaps you should listen to what a 25yr BBC veteran Robin Aitken said

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OY4umBmJHjg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_WEZloX2fQ

alanben wrote: »

Just my opinion course;)

LOL yes it had to be

Tetsuko

guppy wrote: »

So do you fall in to the "refuse to watch any BBC programmes on principle" camp?

No, but all I've watched on the BBC is Dr Who and The Apprentice so far this year. And that wasn't on when I was home so I had to download episodes/watch it on demand anyway. Yes I resent paying a tax on top of my TV subscription for something I very rarely use (and could quite happily do without) so that other people who sit on their butts watching TV all day can watch all the DIY, buy this house, sell this on a car boot, what antiques have you got?, reality TV, Eastenders pap.

If I was actually given the right to choose that a) I could pay the TV tax on top of my cable and broadband fees and watch Dr Who or,

b) I could save over a hundred pounds per year and watch Heros, Lost, The 4400, Stargate and suchlike on cable I would ditch the tax right now.