Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

ckerrd

Sky must reflect the views of the population, and thus is rather moderate.

Why must Sky (whatever that is) do such a thing?

ckerrd

I have to admit that today (Fri 16th) is the day I object to paying for the BBC.

This is the day they give over to advertising and fund raising for a charity.

Well this is not the charity I want my money spent on. No harm to CIN but there are loads of other charities out there there that happen to be higher on my list of priorities so I don't see why a body, paid for by me, should decide which charity to support. Why don't they pick a different one every year?

So -as to the original question - is the licence fee worth it - today - no

guppy

t8769 wrote: »

Its that crazy, Americans are amazed.

In my experience, most Americans with a couple of brain cells to rub together are amazed by the quality of our TV, the high production standards being set by the BBC...

The same Americans fund public radio and tv themselves through donations, telethons and other fundraising, so desperate are they to escape the ad-driven tripe of the mass market media there.

Even you hate the BBC, it still performs a useful function in setting the standard and preventing ITV and five daring to go any further toward the American way...

GamePlayer

guppy wrote: »

t8769 wrote: »

Its that crazy, Americans are amazed.

In my experience, most Americans with a couple of brain cells to rub together are amazed by the quality of our TV, the high production standards being set by the BBC...

The same Americans fund public radio and tv themselves through donations, telethons and other fundraising, so desperate are they to escape the ad-driven tripe of the mass market media there.

Even you hate the BBC, it still performs a useful function in setting the standard and preventing ITV and five daring to go any further toward the American way...

Why do people still keep going on about the quality of the BBC.
It doesn't matter.
Regardless of how good it is you should have a choice about if you want to buy it or not.

People shouldn't be forced someone to buy a product they don't want even if it is good quality or good value for money.

t8769

You're right GamePlayer, even if the BBC did produce anything of value, so what. I personally prefer American TV, I find it more intelligent, better produced, more interesting and most importantly - independent.

If BBC stuff is so good, how come millions of people pay Sky so they can watch the latest American shows.

How come Channel 4 packs its Weekend schedules with American shows, shouldn't we be watching blockbusters from N Korea, Cuba or some other Socialist paradise.

Doesn't add up.

The BBC and its supporters are always going on about how stupid Americans are, and how superior we are to Americans. They prattle on about how lucky we are to have the BBC compared to dumb American TV. Well if that’s true, why don’t British people watch British TV, how come people are always talking about American shows.

If the Americans are so stupid, how come they get to choose what to pay for, while we intelligent Brits are told that we have to fund a bunch of over-paid Socialists at the BBC.

If the Left loves the BBC so much, why don’t they pay for it. I have the utmost respect for others’ views, and if they like the BBC, they can pay for it, and I’ll pay for the channels I want to watch.

Of course this would not work, because the British public would not pay for the BBC.

Daisy_Bell

Well said T8769! :T Perhaps the BBC could have a sort of subscription for each programme worth watching (not much!) We could 'Pay-On-Demand' for the odd decent programme then. I think it's disgraceful that we should have to pay twice for TV! Even the odd bit of decent drama that they ever put on is dragged out in one hour episodes so they can make it last! You've forgotten what the darned thing is about by the time the next episode is on! Their digital programmes are crap as well! 'Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps' seems to be on all night and every night! :huh:

chunkymunky_3

andyjervisuk wrote: »

For all you Sky viewers that pay around £500 a year for programmes that you saw on terrestial TV up to twenty years ago, good luck! Me, I'll stick with freeview digital TV that gives me all the programmes I want except major sporting events which Mr Murdoch with all his money can rip you off by charging extra for anything that is remotely important. He'll not get a penny of my money! You deserve to pay a paultry £135 a year as a penalty for signing up to Sky!

complete nonsense!

im on the minimum sky package paying £180 a year and at anytime of day or night i can find something worth watching! thousands of documentaries and drama's on channels that your precious freeview cant match on the other hand im paying the BBC £135 for one series of topgear and one series of doctor who so tell me, whos really ripping me off?

and your missing the biggest point of all, unlike the BBC mr murdoch isnt forcing me against my will to give him money

t8769

Yes but Mr Murdock is a horrible, monney grubbing capitalist. While the good Socialists at the BBC know they don't have to produce anything that's in demand, they have the right to throw you in jail if you don't give them money.

The Soviet Union had a similar system, and look how succesful they were.

God save us from those who think they are our betters, and know how we should be educated.

chunkymunky_3

if im honest id rather give my money to that nice beardy man whos never had sex, but when i asked, his company said dont expect any new cable to be laid in the next 5 years, so i have to go with the bloated fat cat, but again i must emphasise my earlier point, unlike the BBC he isnt forcing me to pay him!

it really is time the BBC were made to find alternative funding, yes i agree its annoying when a film is interupted by adverts, but then again i cant remember the last time i saw a good film on the BBC!

did anyone else hear that the cast of eastenders is boycotting the christmas party because they were told they would have to pay for partners to attend, thats what your licence fee is spent on! licence fees shouldnt be spent on parties at all never mind for partners

Daisy_Bell

MSE_Lawrence wrote: »

Is the licence fee worth it? This poll took place between 31 July and 7 August 2007

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

Yes, but who won? Is it thumbs up or down for the BBC? (Maths never was my strong point!)