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

Schwade

My responses in bold.

asm1 wrote: »

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

Might you pleasure. Might not give pleasure to others. Let them choose. Not 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.

Correct. If you want to watch BBC, you should pay for it.
Side note is they spent money on iplayer and then spend another bunch on putting things on youtube.

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 might miss it. At that point, I can subscribe to BBC again. I might not, at that point I won't subscribed. In the meantime, I need to pay regardless of whether UK has a fox news or not or whether I watch BBC or not.

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)

That's great you pay for something you like. Let others not pay for something they don't like (e.g. BBC). Now, they don't have that option.

GoodOlAl

Schwade wrote: »

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.

Whether we like it or not, & there's much I don't like about it, "The State" interests & involves itself in all manner of activities from declaring war to determining how TV is funded.

In TV matters I trust neither politicians nor commercial interests, but politicians are accountable up to a point and have an interest in a longer time frame than businessmen interested only in a fast buck.

I appreciate the BBC all the more for having endured American & Italian TV.

Regarding "choice" - it's not only the State that limits my freedom of choice about paying for the BBC:
Sky does not allow me to choose the specific TV Channels I want, its 'packaging' obliges me to buy all sorts of rubbish I 'd rather not.

As for cost, in the land of the free, US cable TV is not cheap and is advert riddled - we know who ends up paying for those. The suggestion that one may 'choose' not to buy advertised products is hardly practical!

I have contributed only because this topic has generated much anti-BBC comment.

For the record, I'm not saying the BBC or its funding is wonderful, but rather like 'democracy' it is the least worst arrangement.

Schwade

My responses in bold.

GoodOlAl wrote: »

Whether we like it or not, & there's much I don't like about it, "The State" interests & involves itself in all manner of activities from declaring war to determining how TV is funded.

You are correct and I don't like the fact that TV licensing needs to be regarded the same as education, security (i.e. government/state interests).

In TV matters I trust neither politicians nor commercial interests, but politicians are accountable up to a point and have an interest in a longer time frame than businessmen interested only in a fast buck.

I appreciate the BBC all the more for having endured American & Italian TV.

Good that you like British TV although doesn't relate to the issue of funding.

Regarding "choice" - it's not only the State that limits my freedom of choice about paying for the BBC:
Sky does not allow me to choose the specific TV Channels I want, its 'packaging' obliges me to buy all sorts of rubbish I 'd rather not.

The only difference is I can reject Sky packages and not pay for it. I can't do that for the licence. I am forced to pay even if I only want to watch CH4, ITV or Five. It's like paying to receive a newspaper I will not read.

As for cost, in the land of the free, US cable TV is not cheap and is advert riddled - we know who ends up paying for those. The suggestion that one may 'choose' not to buy advertised products is hardly practical!

BBC also has internal adverts. Whether cheap or not, people has the choice to spend for it. For BBC, I must pay whatever increases to the TV licence are even if I only watch non-BBC channels.

I have contributed only because this topic has generated much anti-BBC comment.

Always good to have some discussions.

For the record, I'm not saying the BBC or its funding is wonderful, but rather like 'democracy' it is the least worst arrangement.

To me, a system with no mandatory licences and people has the choice to pay for or receive advertising based channels is the least worst arrangement (and in fact more like a democracy) than a system everyone has to pay for a licence, cost set by government, and no choice not to pay (which does not seem democratic).

I presume you would think that a system where BBC issues newspapers is actually better than the current system where there are not state funded newspapers and only commerically funded newspapers?

kingshir

It's worth it for the radio, some of the programmes and for the fact that there are no flipping adverts!! I hate adverts!!!!:mad:

GoodOlAl

Schwade wrote: »

My responses in bold.

I guess our respective life experience has led us to differing conclusions.
The freedom of choice that is important to you is less important to me.
Rather than repeating or continuing arguing specific individual points, I limit myself to writing that our our opinions differ:
Your least worst arrangement has no mandatory licence and gives a choice of paying for advertising;
I say that choice is illusory.
You say that choice it is more democratic.
That is notoriously difficult to define, and anyway we have a 'representative democracy.'
I say our representatives have decided on the BBC and its funding, and I have no quarrel with that and indeed see much advantage in it.

I have no desire for the BBC to produce a newspaper, but if it did, it would be no worse than commercially funded newspapers. An advert-free newspaper produced by the BBC is an attractive if redundant proposition, much of the content being available 'freely' online.

alexisx

What most people seem to be forgetting here is that whatever the BBC decide to broadcast is totally irrelevant to this debate. People should have the choice of whether they pay the lisence and this does not mean a choice of being able to watch TV and not having one at all. It means a choice of whether they pay for the BBC channels or whether they don't.

Basically the lisence system at the moment is not only totally unfair and against our freedom of choice, it is also against several EU laws including the anti-competition act and the fair trade act but all this doesn't come into it because the BBC is an old governement company.

And before people get into the argument of thats all well and good but we need a public broadcaster, what about channel 4 they are still legally entiled to broadcast political broadcasts etc but what do they get out of the lisense fee, nothing thats what. And then we move onto the other channels and personal preference - BBC1 & 2 broadcast nothing better than what Channel 5 broadcasts and yet it manages it with a tenth of the revenue. Moving onto Sky how many channels do you get with their service? Just 2-6? No, perhaps as many as 150 and yet they provide that with a payment similar to that of the BBC?

It all comes down to another public company that is ripping us off left right and centre because it's top heavy with managers and hasn't a clue how to go about things in an economical and efficient manner and it's getting a way with it because no one has challenged it's position.

alexisx

And on another matter 'commercial TV' doesn't have to be purely funded by adverts. A good broadcaster creating good programs could potentially fund itself off it's creations by selling it's programs to other channels. The BBC makes dramas which I believe it sells worldwide, an idea that others could benefit from.

GoodOlAl

alexisx wrote: »

................. People should have the choice of whether they pay the lisence and this does not mean a choice of being able to watch TV and not having one at all. It means a choice of whether they pay for the BBC channels or whether they don't .................

It's a matter of opinion.
Why should people have that choice you mention, given that people don't have a choice over the billions wasted on illegal & misconceived wars & all sorts of other government expenditure. This is not to justify one wrong by another wrong, but to point out we live in a 'representative democracy' and have to accept some unpopular consequences of that. I'm sorry you find it so unfair, but I don't object to the TV licencing arrangement.

alexisx wrote: »

.................
It all comes down to another public company that is ripping us off left right and centre because it's top heavy with managers and hasn't a clue how to go about things in an economical and efficient manner and it's getting a way with it because no one has challenged it's position.

Unfortunately it is the nature of commercial enterprise to 'rip off' customers; in practice there's little difference between the tactics of private and public companies. Before you trumpet the advantages of competing private ones, remember the current global financial crisis has been caused by the banks - private companies that have given this site much cause for dissatisfaction. My last words on this topic are be careful what you wish for.

Alec_2

HOW CAN ANYONE NOT LOVE THE BEEB ? I'VE SPENT MY LIFE TRAVELLING WORLDWIDE, & WHILE IT'S NOT AS GOOD AS IT USED TO BE, IT'S STILL THE BEST SERVICE IN THE WORLD BY FAR. I HAVE NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER WITH BBC, & REALLY WISH THEY WOULDN'T OVERPAY THEIR SO-CALLED 'STARS', BUT IT REALLY IS FABULOUS TO COME HOME TO U.K. & WATCH FILMS, CURRENT AFFAIRS, COMEDY, SOAPS, & ALL THE REST, WITHOUT ADVERTS !!! YES, THE PLUGS IN BETWEEN PROGRAMMES ARE AS BAD, BUT JUST TRY WATCHING AMERICAN TV, SKY RUBBISH, OR EVEN NEW ZEALAND TV, OR ANYWHERE ELSE'S TV..................& YOU'LL LOVE DEAR OLD 'AUNTIE' BBC . HATE TO SAY IT, BUT IT'S WELL WORTH IT !!

Schwade

Alec wrote: »

HOW CAN ANYONE NOT LOVE THE BEEB ? I'VE SPENT MY LIFE TRAVELLING WORLDWIDE, & WHILE IT'S NOT AS GOOD AS IT USED TO BE, IT'S STILL THE BEST SERVICE IN THE WORLD BY FAR. I HAVE NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER WITH BBC, & REALLY WISH THEY WOULDN'T OVERPAY THEIR SO-CALLED 'STARS', BUT IT REALLY IS FABULOUS TO COME HOME TO U.K. & WATCH FILMS, CURRENT AFFAIRS, COMEDY, SOAPS, & ALL THE REST, WITHOUT ADVERTS !!! YES, THE PLUGS IN BETWEEN PROGRAMMES ARE AS BAD, BUT JUST TRY WATCHING AMERICAN TV, SKY RUBBISH, OR EVEN NEW ZEALAND TV, OR ANYWHERE ELSE'S TV..................& YOU'LL LOVE DEAR OLD 'AUNTIE' BBC . HATE TO SAY IT, BUT IT'S WELL WORTH IT !!

What about the other way?

I.e. Imagine you went to New Zealand. You hate NZ TV but the silver lining was they had BBC on one of the channel. However, to watch this, you have to pay for the NZ TV channels.

Would you be happy to pay for something you detest?