Is the TV Licence fee worth it? Poll results/discussion

sueinthesun

munro's_girl wrote: »

SNIP OF REST To me it's just plain boring tripe. You see what I mean? (Indeed I’d like to think that no one else ANYWHERE in the world would produce these banal offerings).

Ha ha haaaaa ROTFL. Obviously never had the misfortune to see any Italian television. I don't see much as I haven't had a TV since 1988 (in the UK I used to have great fun baiting the licencing authority). People who say they only watch commercial TV should be careful what they wish for, as if there were no competition just watch the commercial providers race down towards the lowest common denominator. Ian9outof10 has already made a very good point about Fox News and the bias of the Murdoch channels. Here we have the media mogul crook Berlusconi who manipulates his media towards his own end: completely corrupt.

Be careful what you wish for, I say.

sharnad

I would be very happy for the TV licence to go and have the BBC TV funded by advertising but Im sure it must pay for something I cant think of, all that money cant go on the rubbish repeats and the boring radio that the BBC produce

ian9outof10

I find it hard to believe that in all the hours of BBC TV and Radio programmes you can't find anything interesting to watch or listen to.

How about you tell me about your interests and I'll find something you'll enjoy.

Schwade

See my responses in bold to reflect my view on this.

ian9outof10 wrote: »

I have to say, I'm amazed by some people. To the person who claimed he could live with Dave, where exactly is it that you think Dave gets all of its programmes from? And UK TV. If it wasn't for the BBC, these channels everyone falls over themselves to pay Murdoch for twice (ads and subscriptions) wouldn't have anything to show.

The idea is the channels will fall over themselves paying for things people want to watch (i.e. consumer driven rather than BBC/Murdoch driven.)

Sure, the BBC has its flaws, and there are many people that don't make as much use of it as they could do but it's still a great british institution that, like so many of the other ones, we fail to appreciate. Until it's been destroyed and we're left with a commercialised shell.

It is a great British institution but doesn't mean it is all good. The fact that you are forced to pay it is its Achilles heel. You make "commercialised shell" sounds so evil even though it works in other countries.

The BBC provides so much, and most of it is actually quite high value. And I am certain, that without it, broadcasting in this country would go down the toilet, not long after we hand Murdoch the keys to the whole industry. Funding through tax is not an option, because it would ruin the impartiality of the organisation too.

High value is your opinion. Going down the toilet is your opinion.
How about giving people their own opinion and not forced them to pay for irrespective if they like it or not?

I'll gladly pay £139 a year for TV news that has nothing to do with Murdoch. Take a look at his US news TV operation, FOX News. A station that laughably describes itself as "Fair and Balanced" which it fails to be on a daily basis. Opinion and news on the Fox News channel are impossible to diferentiate from one another.

Fox News is laughable. But please don't be so narrowminded that commerical channels only produce Fox news.
You gladly pay £139. Good for you. Now let a person who doesn't want to pay £139 have the CHOICE.

It's also worth pointing out to you licence fee haters that the UK is not the only country that has a licence fee, and most of Europe has a similar system in place. In Germany its €204 a year for TV and radio, in Austria it's a little more between €200 and €300. Sweden has a fee of €200 in Switzerland you have to pay €300. In some of these countries, there are also adverts (Iceland has a fee of €346 and still shows ads.)

The fact that there are other countries that has the licence does not mean it is good.

If we god rid of the licence fee tomorrow, I'm sure everyone would be stroking their wallets with joy. And then, a few years later lamenting the loss of all TV choice in the UK. For a start, Channel 4 would no longer see the need (or be able to fund) it's excellent documentaries. C4 is already having terrible cash problems, because it quite simply can't make money on it's public service content. If the BBC goes, no broadcaster is going to waste time and money on documentaries. They'll just buy them in cheap from the US and re-dub them.

I have never heard people in Australia or the States complaining they don't have choice. In fact, they are very surprised we are forced to pay for a licence fee.

You might not view the BBC as worthwhile, but I promise you, if it went away, you'd miss it and complain about how "we used to have stuff to watch that wasn't made in America and we could believe the news was impartial"

You might miss it. Others might not. Let the people decide. Not you. Not BBC.

Schwade

sueinthesun wrote: »

Ha ha haaaaa ROTFL. Obviously never had the misfortune to see any Italian television. I don't see much as I haven't had a TV since 1988 (in the UK I used to have great fun baiting the licencing authority). People who say they only watch commercial TV should be careful what they wish for, as if there were no competition just watch the commercial providers race down towards the lowest common denominator. Ian9outof10 has already made a very good point about Fox News and the bias of the Murdoch channels. Here we have the media mogul crook Berlusconi who manipulates his media towards his own end: completely corrupt.

Be careful what you wish for, I say.

To be honest, I have never heard any American say that they would rather be in our system (i.e. license fee with BBC) than in their system (i.e. no licence fee with commerical channels).

Why? Because they have a CHOICE not to watch Fox News.

Let's not forget CH4 won the best formatted documentary.
Let's not ITV also won awards.

So let's not always assume BBC is always better than commerical channels.
http://www.rts.org.uk/

N80RK

If I have to pay for a television licence on the basis that it provides non-commercial and unbiased channels then I expect to receive just that. I would be happy to pay for a TV licence that delivered value for money - the BBC are spending too much of our money on over-inflated salaries and channels so obscure that they achieve dismal viewing figures.

I believe that the BBC are having their cake and eating it! Why should the licence fee that I and every other TV watching Brit pay be used to publicly advertise the musicals of Andrew LLoyd Webber? This man is making a small fortune off the back of theatre shows blatantly promoted by the BBC.

Also, as anyone who has been to the pictures recently will have seen, the BBC have seen fit to spend OUR money on an advert for 'The Chris Moyles Show' on Radio 1 - an appropriate use of licensing funds - I think not!

Graham Norton's obscene golden handcuffs deal - do you think that he's been worth your money?

sharnad

ian9outof10 wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that in all the hours of BBC TV and Radio programmes you can't find anything interesting to watch or listen to.


How about you tell me about your interests and I'll find something you'll enjoy.

I enjoy scrubs the west wing ncis lost heroes monk time team

I like a lot of tv that is on hallmark

I like sky news I like to listen to classic fm

I wish there was someway to block my access to BBC channels and let me spend the £130 on dvds and I would get much more out of it

GoodOlAl

I like the BBC.
I don't like adverts.
The licence fee seems the lesser evil - in fact I'd pay double to be spared adverts, and a little more to be spared the BBC's self-promoting adverts.
"Commercial television" - that is 100% advert-funded TV - ultimately panders to the lowest common denominator.
We all have to pay for things we don't want: politicians, wars, education of other people's children, etc so just because you don't like something is not much of an excuse to hate the BBC or the TV licence.

asm1

the bbc output is vast and if you listen/watch to any bbc output think how much pleasure that might give you

Without a shadow of a doubt the bbc need to be tighter with respect to what they do, but "watching iplayer" (a way suggested to avoid the fee) kind of misses the point. Without the fee, the bbc could never have developed it.

when the UK has the equivalent of "fox news" you might just miss old aunty. Can you imagine any other broadcaster going through "Hutton" and still coming out stronger?

I'm clearly just one of those people happy to pay for something that is good.(and that is said when I hate lots of the output that the bbc provide)

Schwade

GoodOlAl wrote: »

I like the BBC.
I don't like adverts.
The licence fee seems the lesser evil - in fact I'd pay double to be spared adverts, and a little more to be spared the BBC's self-promoting adverts.
"Commercial television" - that is 100% advert-funded TV - ultimately panders to the lowest common denominator.
We all have to pay for things we don't want: politicians, wars, education of other people's children, etc so just because you don't like something is not much of an excuse to hate the BBC or the TV licence.

I like how you think television is a state interest similar to politicans, wars, education. I never knew News, Top Gear, Diagnosis Murder, Homes under the Hammer, Weakest Link, Blue Peter, Traffic Cops, The Apprentice, National Lottery Draws are state related issues that commerical or subscribed based channels cannot deal with.