Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

newcook

Ollieda wrote: »

Not only does the BBC provide us with good quality television and radio, its ad free people!!!! Now that worth something, what would you rather do? Scrap BBC and go with someone like Sky....their most basic and cheapest package is £15 a month...(£180 a year as opposed to £135.50 for the license).

not really true - it advertises its other channels and programmes. last night when holby city finished, as soon as the credits appeared they got minimised so BBC could tell you what was on next on BBC 1,2,3 and 4. If I was an actor who had had a little role (especially if it was my first) I would be quite dissapointed as I would probably be looking forward to seeing my name amongst the 'stars' but I would have to get out my magnifying glass!

they often show an advert for eastenders with samantha Janus and the other new woman (cant remember her name) which is on for about 1 minute.

As I mentioned in another post, I have got sky but it was a one off payment rather than a subscription - TBH I would rather pay that payment every year (about £100) for all the additional channels I receive including about 5/6 movie channels instead of £135 for 5 channels (3 of which pay for themselves with adverts)

westernpromise

Ollieda wrote: »

Not only does the BBC provide us with good quality television and radio, its ad free people!!!!

It's not ad free. It's full of ads for other BBC channels, programmes, products, and ventures. It is a commercial channel which only allows one advertiser - itself.

Whether it is good quality or not is a matter of opinion. I think most of it is poor, and what is good always turns out to be imported from the US, or co-funded with some other channel (Walking with Dinosaurs was a co-production with the Discovery Channel, for instance).

Now that worth something, what would you rather do? Scrap BBC and go with someone like Sky....their most basic and cheapest package is £15 a month...(£180 a year as opposed to £135.50 for the license).

You've just proved that Sky is cheaper. The BBC is "cheap" because 4 out of 5 people don't use it but still have to pay for it. If there were a Sky TV licence, priced on the same basis, it would be £36 a year. Let's see: Sky for £36 a year, or the BBC for £136 a year? I'd go with Sky.

When we spoke to them, they would tell us things like how the BBC shows them that there is a better life out there and one day they could have a better life like that...........I would pay £135.50 a year just for that!

Jolly good. I wouldn't though. Tell you what - abolish the licence fee and you can send them your £135! How's that?

As for the 1 in 5 figure, I can't find a link to what it is now, but the BBC's share has been in long term decline for years. In 2004 it was down to 36% (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1386007,00.html) and in 2005 it fell further (http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article328728.ece). Its peak time viewing share often dips as low as 15% - the overall figure is only as high as it is because it includes the hours when others aren't broadcasting. Basically the BBC can manipulate its apparent audience share to look higher than it is by including its share of the audience at 5am on a Sunday morning, when BBC News 24 is on but not a lot else is. When you look at how it does when there is competition for viewers, the BBC gets absolutely creamed, even by ITV.

The claim that this is quality TV is pure elitist arrogance. Most people do not watch it. Obviously most people don't think it's quality.

The licence fee should not be compulsory. The technology is there to make it pay per view, and the reason those who support the licence do so is because they know nobody but them would pay for the BBC if they had a choice. If all the guff about quality were true, people would pay for it voluntarily. You all just want your viewing preferences subsidised by others, and you're happy to see them sent to prison if they don't play along.

I can't think of any TV programme I like so much I want single mothers to be jailed so I can watch it on the cheap. Yes, failure to pay the licence fee is the main offence for which single mothers are jailed in this country. Thanks, BBC!

Wiggynut

I didn't own a tv for 5 years and the TV licence guy treated me with contempt when he came round my building - he even looked in my wardrobe as he couldn't believe a young woman didn't watch soaps (I hate soaps!!) or own a tv .. I'm a weirdo... I like books! I spent a year trying to tell the tv licence people that I don't need a tv licence - no tv - no licence!! but they just kept sending demands and warnings!

Nowadays, I have a tv so I can watch DVD's and the occassional american programmes through a 2nd hand freeview box (I didn't pay for it as my Italian friend's didn't want it anymore - they got sky! They watch sky movies constantly and American sitcomes - they don't understand why they have to pay the BBC for this!). I listen to my own CD's on my Hi-Fi and to alternative radio stations - why do I have to pay an extra £135 per year for this?

If you want to watch BBC related programming then pay the fee, if you don't then you shouldn't have to pay it... simple!?

(BBC does play ads constantly.. they have their own ads - they repeat them so many times that you don't want to watch the actual programme when it does finally show! - unfortunately I have a friend who watches Eastenders even when she has people round!)

westernpromise

I note that the poll results were a total win for the pro-liberty, pro-choice, anti-licence fee view: we won by 67% to 33%.

I guess we are just another majority that gets to be ignored.

Dan29

westernpromise wrote: »

As for the 1 in 5 figure, I can't find a link to what it is now, but the BBC's share has been in long term decline for years.

Share isn't the important measure for this discussion though, reach is. Virtually 100% of people use some BBC service in the course of an average week. Your 1 in 5 figure is way off.

rockpeblar

Having lived in the UK for the last 38 years and now having moved over to Australia in the last 3 months I certainly miss both BBC radio and TV. It's definitely worth the money. Thankfully we can listen to BBC radio over the net and get the odd BBC programme over here but our TV viewing has dropped dramatically.

I can tell you that the commercial alternative is complete rubbish, over here at least!!

bluedove

If we don't want to watch BBC we shouldn't be forced to pay the license, We should have a choice and be allowed to watch non BBC transmissions without paying a license for the BBC.

Cable and Sky are choices, if you don't need them you don't pay for them but owing a TV means you MUST BE WATCHING BBC???????

Even when you don't own a TV, you still get bullied by the licence mafia, this is the only tax forced to people who do not make use or benefit from the service.

Tetsuko

rockpeblar wrote: »

Having lived in the UK for the last 38 years and now having moved over to Australia in the last 3 months I certainly miss both BBC radio and TV. It's definitely worth the money. Thankfully we can listen to BBC radio over the net and get the odd BBC programme over here but our TV viewing has dropped dramatically.

I can tell you that the commercial alternative is complete rubbish, over here at least!!

Great. That makes me feel so much better. Its nice to know that when I've been forced to pay for a TV licence when I've barely had two pennies to rub together that people the world over have been taking free advantage of what I've paid for *humph*

tbh444

There are irritations about the license fee system for sure - for example the useless people in control of the collection, their threatening letters and their not understand the concept of not actually owning a tv.

However, the non-commercial system as a whole is great, and I believe the vast majority of people would miss it if it went, even those who don't currently realise it. Look at the junk that is ITV, Sky, etc... look at how awful watching tv is in America.

Also, it is not compulsory as often stated - as alluded to above there is such a thing as not owning a tv you know (and I suspect we'd be a much better country if more people went down this road...) hence no license fee. It's your choice in the end.

mrsv69

We're not the only country to have to pay the licence fee - check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence for a comprehensive guide.

You may also be interested to learn that Channel 4 claimed that it may need licence fee income if it is to continue with public broadcasting after the digital switch-over. To this end, on 25th April 2006 it was announced that Channel 4's digital switch-over bill would be paid for from the licence fee.

Some countries still charge for a radio and if you're lucky to live in Belgium's Walloon region, there is a tax on having a car radio..!!!