MoneySaving Poll: Should the BBC be downscaled?

Ian_Summerton

Why do people seem to happily pay nearly £1000 per annum for the full Sky package then complain at £150 for the BBC. I suspect it is because it has the tag "License" and is seen as another form of Tax. Certainly the value from the BBC is incomparable with Sky (and they have adverts as well)

pollypenny

Ian_Summerton wrote: »

Why do people seem to happily pay nearly £1000 per annum for the full Sky package then complain at £150 for the BBC. I suspect it is because it has the tag "License" and is seen as another form of Tax. Certainly the value from the BBC is incomparable with Sky (and they have adverts as well)

Well said! :T :T

LHW99

Perhaps an extra few pence on all devices with screens would be an alternative to the license / adding to Council Tax?
There isn't an easy way to watch bbc content without some kind of screen, unless you use someone else's - which would have paid the addon.
Might reduce the tendency to scrap one device immediately a new version comes out too.

tastyfish

When you live in other countries for any length of time (I have, in Australia and India) you appreciate how far ahead the BBC is in terms of quality.

I definitely don't want adverts, the whole point is that it remains impartial. Why on earth would ANYONE want to see more advertising?!

I would prefer a separate BBC sports channel so that regular shows aren't affected.

I would also prefer the BBC to stop dumbing down the news, have fewer reporters. Anyone who watches BBC news will know how much is repeated so why so many presenters and reporters?

And why so many weather forecasters? They're all reading the same thing and surely you only need one or two to record a forecast for every region?

I wouldn't like to see our BBC local radio station go. BBC Glos, for example, is brilliant at discussing local issues and allowing people to have a view or listen to things that may directly affect them.

Finally, BBC website should be free to licence fee payers and their households. Everyone else can pay for it, include everyone from outside the UK.

rogerj

Can we dispel the myth that television funded by advertising is free. The manufacturer simply adds the cost of advertising on to the product. That supermarket basket has the cost of advertising the goods, factored into the amount you pay at the till.

The BBC license costs me around 40p a day, which I'm happy to pay for original material and quality.

The other alternative is subscription. No wonder Sky TV with its £1,000 a year full package would like to get the BBC out of the way.

My only objection is paying for the BBC World Service, such as BBC Persian Service Satellite broadcasting to Iran -which only gets jammed. The BBC World Service used to be financed by central government, this would lift a large financial burden from the BBC.

stingyscot

No! to advertising on the BBC.
It's bad enough on TV, where it's possible to record everything and then skip through the ads (but irritating having to) but worse on the radio where ads on commercial channels are horrible and can't be avoided. Also ads automatically inserted into films and dramas by clock time lead to some appallingly bad results.
Either stick to the licensing system for everyone who accesses BBC by any means, or, easier and cheaper I'd have thought, take out of normal taxation so everyone pays a tiny amount.

fandango9

I voted for advertising on the BBC, and I don't have Sky. I just object to having to subsidise obscene salaries for arrogant presenters who detest normal folk.

On another note:
Why don't we get the total accumulated results for these surveys?
It would make sense to have the overall results as well (I for one am not interested in how different age groups vote).

cheers
karl

americatriumph

I'm surprised that all age groups appear to be in favour of keeping the licence fee the same including rising with inflation. With all the channels available these days via satellite, cable etc., it seems archaic to have to pay for for the sake of one 'British institution'. I rarely watch anything on the BBC now as the satellite channels offer far more variety of entertainment and factual programmes for which i have to and am happy to pay a monthly subscription for. If i could opt out of the licence fee and lose access to the BBC I would be gladly do so.

JamesKent

It doesn't matter how great you think the BBC is, if somebody else doesn't want to watch it, they should not be forced to pay for a TV licence to watch content from anyone else (e.g. Discovery, ITV etc.).

It is not good value if you don't want to watch it... it is legalised robbery.

Abolish it now.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104367

PJTucker29

The TV licence was set up in a time when their was only the BBC. Nowadays this is absolutely not the case, and I can't understand how the other TV companies let the BBC get this unfair advantage. TV licence is essentially a subscription fee enforced by the law. I have no choice, I have to subscribe to the BBC. This is unfair and totally wrong. I like the BBC, and if I had a choice, and it was priced competitively, I might subscribe to it, but I am dead against being forced to pay for it like a tax. The licence fee should be scrapped, or at least no longer enforced by law. If I was Richard Branson or Mr BT/Sky, I would not let this continue.