Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

Defiant_3

Stanfordlad wrote: »

The TV licence works out at a paltry 40p a day.

My Virgin Media cable TV (with phoneline which has FREE evening & weekend calls) works out at a paltry 35p per day You see I can drill down the numbers to make it look better too. I don't know why the BBC think drilling the number down makes things seem better either

Defiant_3

Boggles1234 wrote: »

I think I would agree with the Government's line that the licence fee is "the least worst way of funding the BBC".

Channel 4 is a public service and that costs me NOTHING. I just don't get why the left insists that the majority should be forced to fund a broadcaster for them.

Boggles1234 wrote: »

Also it is worth noting that the licence fee doesn't go entirely to the BBC. It also pays for the production (indirectly) of a lot of the welsh language programmes on channels such as S4C. In 2006 it was also agreed that the fee would be used to pay for the cost of channel 4 switching over to digital TV as well.

That's only a small amount something like £2 million because the government also gives them something like £89 million and that believe it or not is for a potential audience of 250,000. However the situation with that is a little different because the English have always subsibised the Welsh, Irish & Scottish so thats a different topic

Defiant_3

mbanbrook wrote: »

Does Martin get paid by the BBC for his appearances? If so, his site has technically started a debate about whether one of his employers should remain in business!

:money:

I noticed when this subject came up on the Wright Stuff and Martin was on the show non of them seemed happy about criticising the mighty BBC because they had worked for them and could again not exactly neutral hey!

ajbaker

I side with those who believe paying the license fee is a good thing. The fee is minimal for the opportunity to receive many channels (five for me since I haven't bothered with Freeview) of varying quality. I would much rather this than an extra £13-£40 a month for Sky/Cable that, for me, brings no benefit. The quality of UK TV has long been regarded as the best, and the BBC in particular have a good reputation worldwide. Further more, the BBC News web site is recognised worldwide as one of the best - I certainly prefer it to any other. Also I believe once the iPlayer is free for all (Mac and Linux too) it will be one of the best and most reasonable sources for entertainment online. Finally, BBC radio is the only radio I can listen to for more than 5 minutes - others have to be turned off as soon as the adverts appear.

£135 is a minimal fee to pay just for not having to put up with adverts. Compared with all of the other public bills we face, it really is very good. I know some would disagree but if the BBC went the same way as other public organisations have, we would be in dire straits.

kramii

I don't pay for a licence.;)

Why? I have not had a TV for nearly 10 years. I really don't miss it. I have a 3yr old, but he's happy with DVDs (we watch them on the PC). Admittedly, I do watch bits and pieced when I visit friends and family (my mother records all the Dr. Who for me, and I'm 38!). The main benefits of no TV is having more time and learning to think for myself instead of passively acceptinh the pre-digested opinions served up by the TV companies.

I do get annoyed my the rudeness of the letters / phone calls / visits I receive from the TV licencing people.:mad:

When the inspectors do call, my favourite tactic is to ask for a detector van to be set up outside my property. They are yet to take me up on the offer - perhaps the charges for visitor parking put them off.:p

I would gladly pay for a radio licence (not the full TV licence amount). BBC radio is second to none. I hate the ads on commercial radio, and really don't rate the content either.

Defiant_3

ajbaker wrote: »

I side with those who believe paying the license fee is a good thing. The fee is minimal for the opportunity to receive many channels (five for me since I haven't bothered with Freeview) of varying quality. .

So you'd be happy for the mighty BBC to go subscription so you and all the other Beeb lovers pay for it by yourselfs instead of forcing the majority to subsidise you ?

pricehunter

I doubt that most who think the fee represents good value have low incomes. In a country like the UK where prices, fees and taxes are out of control, who in there right mind would justify another compulsory payment for something we can easily do without or don't want.

I'd gladly get rid of the BBC channels to save £135 a year. BBC programmes are not of a higher quality than ITV, Channel 4 or 5 and one can always find equivalent programs on the many other channels. I'd rather subject myself to advertisements than pay this extortionate fee.

No longer are the BBC independent and now with government intervention they become closer so there's little chance of their demise or at least licence abolishment. The majority do not want the BBC at £135 a year. There simply is no justification for this license being compulsory. It's an outrage. Shame on the BBC.

Unhban

I think many, if not most, people don't realise that:

o it's not the BBC but the Government that sets the amount of the licence fee

o it's the Government through an agency that then collects this amount, not the BBC

o when the Government has got your £135 it then takes a slice of this amount for itself, after having first decided how much it will pass on to the BBC over so many years (the Charter period)

So the £135 charge does not all go to the BBC.

Also, many people don't realise that the commercial channels costs every person (with or without a television) much more than this charge. When you buy a packet of Persil a certain amount of the cost of the packet goes towards advertising. Everyone is paying much more than £135 a year this way towards our beloved advertising breaks.....

Enjoy!

aMIGA_dUDE

Lets think other ways of paying for BBC.

1) Add's on channel (not good idea programmes like Watchdog will have issue as there paymaster will not put adds on the channel)
2) Subscription (not good idea as people on low income will find hard to pay to subscribe) (Yep I know this already is happing with Rip Off Licence)
3) National Tax (Government will have to much control over content)
4) Tax upon broadcasters

Well I can not see problem with option 4. So what is option 4 I have never heard of that before. Well it like VAT which is charged to broadcasters likes ITV, Sky, QVC, Capital Radio. All forms of income a broadcaster makes from broadcastings business a Tax at say 10 % is charged. So all add's will have Tax charge of 10% and all calls which generate a revenue will have Tax charge and anything like QVC sell will have this cost as well.

Idiophreak

Pretty much all I watch on the BBC regularly is neighbours, so once that goes, the licence will seem pretty poor value..