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

Schwade

Lurkio wrote: »

Sky TV / Fox has shown us what happens when you forfeit quality for ratings chasing.....

BBC is not going to please all the people all the time, but it is a well respected organisation throughout the world. As soon as you make it a 'free market' as Mr pots says, everything changes and the quality will go down the pan at the expense of the cheapest possible television to appeal to the lowest common denominator (BB anyone?)

For that reason alone, the BBC is WELL worth the money.


BTW Pots - that is one of the weakest arguments I've ever seen you post! Buck up, man!

BBC has stuff up in alot of areas. There are news about it. Well-respected is very subjective.

You also forgot that it was actually SKY news who won the award last year, NOT BBC.

I guess you don't read any commerical newspapers then - like the Financial Times?? Since you would regard them as low quality just like commerical news?

Schwade

Bogart wrote: »

IMHO the BBC is more than just TV/ radio and we probably benefit more from it being there than we would if it wasn't.

The TV licence is a tax and unfortunately none of us have the option to dip out of the taxes that we don't think we benefit from. Just because you have private medical insurance doesn't mean you can opt out of paying the proportion your taxes that go towards the NHS, if you drive less than the average mileage you don't get a rebate on your car tax, your poll tax pays for loads of council services that you will never use.

A global tax (like the TV licence) funds services that overall make this a better country to live in than it might be if they didn't exist. In that way the BBC provides a global service that you can choose not to watch if you want (that is your right as a taxpayer) but that the majority of people use and enjoy. Not using a public service is not an excuse for refusing to contribute to the provision of that service to others. Society is founded on exactly that sort of shared contribution model.

I pay more for Sky per year and they also have commercials but that is my conscious choice. If I could only choose one or the other I would choose the BBC every time.

You are equating a TV channel to health services as something that government needs to provide to the society?

Wow, I guess all the other countries who don't have a licence fee is missing out on such a valuable service from the government.

In addition, BBC has expanded so much it is not just a government mouthpiece, it is directly bidding against commerical channels.

Schwade

DdraigGoch wrote: »

I agree with Bogart. It is a tax on everyone who has a television because we have a publicly funded television network. If you don't want to pay it, don't have a television. If you use your television purely for watching DVDs/playing games on and watch i-player re-runs on your computer plus listen to the radio then it's free. Check the licence fund pages. It's precisedly what is says it is - a licence fee. If you have a car, you have to get a licence, if you have a televison, you have to get a licence! Simple.

I can't quite agree with the "safer than private television because it's independent from the government of the day" as the media seem to hunt with the hounds mostly, only the "daring" ones run with the fox! It shouldn't be like that , but it is, so, bearing that in mind, I still think that the BBC is exceptionally good value for money.

I'm happy to pay the licence, it isn't just all about adverts or not. There's a lot more to the BBC than is immediately obvious.

If you like BBC, you should pay for it.

What about the people don't like it? Should they subsidise your enjoyment?

What about the people who only watch CH4 and not BBC? Should BBC enjoy taking money from people who don't use their services?

Smickan

DAZnJEN wrote: »

The TV icence is outdated - with SKY, Freeview and Cable most people are paying twice to watch TV. How many people would really miss BBC channels and Radio if you had the choice to have them taken away and not pay the licence fee - me personally, well other than eastenders i dont think i watch any BBC channels and i never listen to BBC radio so i would choose to have them removed and save myself £135 per year

Same, I don't especially watch anything on the BBC aside from EastEnders, Top Gear and Holby City that I couldn't buy watch on the Iplayer or buy on DVD (Some comedies etc), and I agree with Dave that I find the BBC adverts as annoying as the other ones so would prefer it to just become the proper type and have done with it.

That one with the girl in the chair that says something about 'BBC3 is changing....', the one with the grabber that pulls people out (another BBC3 I thnk) and the one over easter with the lady sat singing/chanting all really annoyed me.

If I could have UK Gold, ITV, E4 and Dave and on my TV I'd be happy :rolleyes:

sdooley

Schwade wrote: »

Think of life without commerical produced programmes:

No 24
No Lost
No Prison Break
No House
No CH4 documentaries

Moral of the story 1 - we don't need a state-funded company to product good programmes. Both can product good and bad shows.

Moral of the story 2 - everyone likes different things. Give people the choice to pay the licence fee. E.g. if they only want to watch CH5, you shouldn't have to pay for BBC.

All except Ch4 are US shows & the US is a bigger market so might be expected to produce more quality output without subsidy. Ch. 4 has been state-funded - free airwaves bandwith and a subsidy mechanism from the itv franchises.

teddyco

When the Australian Labor Party government abolished the TV License in 1974, it was done on the basis that the near-universality of television and radio services meant that public funding was a fairer method of providing revenue for government-owned radio and television broadcasters.

Australia currently funds public television through government grants.

Ultimately, funding for public television is going to have to be taken from some source, either a TV License or public taxes, but it's a matter of pro's versus con's that count in this argument.

Is it better that the BBC is funded through the TV License or through other means? i.e. government funding, grants, general taxes, private corporate sponsorships (similar to public broadcasting in the U.S.), advertising and international marketing/distribution revenue.

What is important is that THE BRITISH TAXPAYER should be the one who ultimately decides through a majority vote in the next general election!

When we cast our ballot for The Conservative government in the next election, each one of us should also be allowed to vote for/against the abolition of the TV License.

The government should let the people decide!

[Deleted User]

Those who bemoan the cost of the BBC don't value what they have. So ALL TV channels should show commercials? Like the US, for example?

Has anyone here ever been to the US and watched their TV? Hundreds of different channels, full of commercials and bland, boring fodder. I "fondly" remember one evening in a US motel, clicking through 70+ channels trying to find one programme I could bear to watch (without success).

So the BBC costs us money - just over £10 per month? I think it's Good Value.

And, after all, this is a moneysaving website. Want a good strategy for saving money? Only watch the BBC, and record anything on a commercial channel so that you can fast-forward through the ads. It's amazing how many of those "must have" impulses to buy stuff disappear when you do that.

da0

I've only two points to make:

• The BBC is great and it needs funding. But I don't believe £18M should go to Jonathan Ross.

(Single) Mother's on low incomes often face the choice: feed the kids, or pay the licence fee. As a result of not paying the fee, and subsequent court fines, many women are jailed:

http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/discussion/should-women-get-equal-prison-sentances-to-men/1066733/
"When you look at what women are actually locked up for-not including high tariff drug importation offences- it's often quite petty. Women are most likely to be convicted of failure to pay for a TV license, some 4,512offences alone last year."

This is a huge cost to society in general.

• Whilst it's done for Public Service reasons we should take it out of general taxation, just like the NHS or schools. Otherwise privatise it and let it fund itself, like ITV or Sky.

BTW I am not a single mother, but a married father of 3.

effort2save

GileZ wrote: »

4OD Doesn't require a license fee because they make you watch those annoying adverts at the beginning. BBC iPlayer assumes you have a licence, you ar supposed to have one to watch it, which is why you can only watch it in the UK at the moment, i believe.

Nope. If you read the iplayer FAQs it states that you do not need a license to watch the programmes they have online, BUT that you would if you were watching it live - which they are intending to start doing. True about 4oD, but the ads are short - and only at the beginning - all the other ad breaks are cut out - which is quite refreshing. You can also watch ITV live online. I assume no licence necessary as not BBC.

muggles

BBC 1 and 2 shouldn't have adverts. Ever. They're irritating at best and put me off watching. The license fee is probably the only way of avoiding them, and to be honest I don't mind paying a bit to keep them off. HOWEVER, I do object to paying for the constant stream of drivel the BBC churns out on BBC3. 1 and 2 should be kept clean, so those of us who want to watch proper TV without interruptions can do so, and the other BBC channels should have limited amounts of adverts to make up the difference, or even pay the fee altogether.