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

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

Out of interest, regarding the question of "why should I pay for something I may not use", could I pose a counter-question?

The programmes that ITV produce have to be paid for by someone, i.e. the advertisers. So let's say I shop in Tesco, but don't watch ITV. Through my shopping bill I am ultimately paying for these adverts, which pay for programmes I don't watch.

It's not as if I can realistically choose to shop at places, or choose products which don't advertise, because virtually every store/product advertises.

So what's the difference?

Sorry I don't understand - can you rephrase the counter-question? How can I be shopping in Tesco and paying for ITV?

If you check the costs of the goods you buy from Tesco, it would be everything to do with Tesco and the product.

mymatebob

Defiant wrote: »

I'm not the one forcing the majority to pay for my biased & corrupt broadcaster Lurkio. The BBC remind me of the Nazi’s in the way that they force biased news on people and then send the SS (TV Licensing) around if you have a problem with it. You have the nerve to call me bitter and twisted but I'm the one who believes the public should have the right in watching true FTA TV without fearing the mighty BBC coming around threatening them with fine's & then locking them up
:mad: :rolleyes:

You must live in a different part of the country from me as the BBC don't force any News on me at all. Why would TV licensing people turn up at your door if you didn't watch BBC News? Is this something I have missed in this debate? Are there any other programmes I will be prosecuted for not watching or listening too that I should be aware of?

mymatebob

Schwade wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand - can you rephrase the counter-question? How can I be shopping in Tesco and paying for ITV?

If you check the costs of the goods you buy from Tesco, it would be everything to do with Tesco and the product.

I think, simply put, because Tesco pays ITV to have its adverts on there channels and this is where much of ITV revenue comes from, not Tesco but advertisers in general.

So if you want to avoid paying for ITV you have to avoid every product that advertises.

magyar

Schwade wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand - can you rephrase the counter-question? How can I be shopping in Tesco and paying for ITV?

If you check the costs of the goods you buy from Tesco, it would be everything to do with Tesco and the product.

OK so...
Wholesaler sells goods to Tesco for £2 each.
Tesco then add on their costs (of running their business) and a profit margin and we end up paying £5 each.
Tesco's costs include their advertising budget, and so a small element of the cost of the product includes that advertising revenue. It may only be, say 0.1p out of the £5, but it's 0.1p on every single product you buy.

Likewise, it's 0.1p that you're effectively paying to every company that advertises on television.

magyar

mymatebob wrote: »

I think, simply put, because Tesco pays ITV to have its adverts on there channels and this is where much of ITV revenue comes from, not Tesco but advertisers in general.

So if you want to avoid paying for ITV you have to avoid every product that advertises.

Exactly. And the point is that since virtually every major company advertises on TV, you cannot avoid paying for ITV either.

The bottom line is that television programmes cost money and someone has to pay for it. This either comes out of advertising revenue (which is passed on to consumers), or it comes directly from the public.

Defiant_3

magyar wrote: »

I didn't intend to mislead and would have thought the use of the word 'fact' above was clearly taken out of context. Defiant, I will happily apologise for having used a word you didn't like; it would be equally nice if you would apologise for the aggressive post you made above in Post #129.

YOU said you hadn't used the word "fact" but you clearly had because like a good little BBC employee you push your opinions as fact. I have nothing to apologise for because you shouldn't be here if character fonts hurt you.

magyar wrote: »

In the interests of discussion, perhaps we could start again and let me rephrase my original post.

I consider the BBC to provide, in particular, an excellent radio service. I would be surprised if anyone disagrees that it is the best in the world, and think that the price which this costs - approx. 50p a day - is extremely good value.

Because the mighty BBC happens to suite you and you have millions of people in this country forced to subsidise television viewing habits. Tell me how would you feel if you were forced to subsidise Cable & Sky packages, Jack ?

magyar wrote: »

To be honest, regarding people who don't want to pay for it - I don't care.

Yes we've already worked that one out Jack :rolleyes:

magyar wrote: »

My point is that I think that £136 a year is extremely good value for what the BBC provides me, and if there was ever a vote on the matter I'd vote for the status quo. I don't feel the need to defend the BBC.

Back to what I said before it's all about YOU. I'm more than happy with my FREEview PVR & so I shouldn't be forced into paying for the rubbish YOU happen to enjoy. If I wanted to subscription channels it should be my CHOICE which ones I want & not yours. I could subscribe to cable for just £132 a year and get a FREE phoneline which is clearly better value than the mighty BBC

magyar wrote: »

Out of interest, regarding the question of "why should I pay for something I may not use", could I pose a counter-question?

The programmes that ITV produce have to be paid for by someone, i.e. the advertisers. So let's say I shop in Tesco, but don't watch ITV. Through my shopping bill I am ultimately paying for these adverts, which pay for programmes I don't watch.

Now I definitely know you work for the BBC because that's yet another one straight out of their book. You ignore the fact that advertising has been going on since before TV was invented and the costs involved in advertising a product are made back 2 fold so the actual cost is ZERO to me. Let’s not let facts (yes I said facts because I can back it up) get in the way hey Jack

ronben

I wouldnt mind paying the TV Tax if the payment plan was actually monthly so I could budget better, but I am not aware of a DD scheme by TVL that does actually let me pay monthly at a monthly rate and not 6months or 3 months in advance.

In all honesty tho Im with Defiant on this :T

magyar

ronben wrote: »

I wouldnt mind paying the TV Tax if the payment plan was actually monthly so I could budget better, but I am not aware of a DD scheme by TVL that does actually let me pay monthly at a monthly rate and not 6months or 3 months in advance.

Is this what you mean?

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/waystopay/directdebitintro.jsp

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

Because the mighty BBC happens to suite you and you have millions of people in this country forced to subsidise television viewing habits. Tell me how would you feel if you were forced to subsidise Cable & Sky packages, Jack ?

I am forced to do so, via the advertising route as described above.

Defiant wrote: »

Back to what I said before it's all about YOU. I'm more than happy with my FREEview PVR & so I shouldn't be forced into paying for the rubbish YOU happen to enjoy. If I wanted to subscription channels it should be my CHOICE which ones I want & not yours. I could subscribe to cable for just £132 a year and get a FREE phoneline which is clearly better value than the mighty BBC

Yes, it's all about ME. Isn't 'choice' all about YOU? The licence fee gives me what I want - advertising free quality television. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, why should I vote to abolish something which benefits me?

Defiant wrote: »

Now I definitely know you work for the BBC because that's yet another one straight out of their book. You ignore the fact that advertising has been going on since before TV was invented and the costs involved in advertising a product are made back 2 fold so the actual cost is ZERO to me. Let’s not let facts (yes I said facts because I can back it up) get in the way hey Jack

I'm impressed at you 'knowing I work for the BBC' because I'm sat having lunch in an office surrounded by the logos of a completely different company. Why do you think that only people who work for the BBC would support it?

Your argument regarding increased revenues as a result of advertising is pure sophistry. Television programmes cost money to make. That money has to come from somewhere, and it's us - the consumers.

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

Exactly. And the point is that since virtually every major company advertises on TV, you cannot avoid paying for ITV either.

The bottom line is that television programmes cost money and someone has to pay for it. This either comes out of advertising revenue (which is passed on to consumers), or it comes directly from the public.

Ok thanks for the clarification.

So the +argument is:
The money you paid for your milk in Tesco is subsidising ITV because Tesco is paying for advertisements.

The only problem to this argument is:
1. I have the choice knowing that I am paying for ITV to shop at Tesco. I have a choice to go to another supermarket which is in competition with Tesco.
2. Tesco has a choice not to advertise on ITV.

There is the freedom to do so. If I don't want to pay for it. I can. I can't for BBC. The money I paid to BBC does not fund ITV. It is purely funded for BBC only. BBC is in fact, in competition with ITV.

So it is not even in a different market segment as how you argued between Tesco and ITV. They are competing in the exact same segement. The comparison should be Tesco and Sainbury's. I am paying for milk in Tesco so that I can get free milk in Sainbury's (despite the fact that the free milk was free because of something totally irrelevant to my payment in Tesco.)

To me, it is like paying for Evening Standard so that I can read the Metro (please do not associate the quality of the newspapers, just arguing the funding mechanism.)