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

gemzz90

I have to say this subject really does make my bloody boil, I just cannot understand how in 2008, with nearly as many channels on television (slight exaggeration) and most commercialised, how we are still being forced to pay this compulsory license fee which as far as I understand stems back to when the BBC had a monopoly on broadcasting and of course had to raise finance from viewers.

I acknowledge the debate in favour of the BBC, but no one is asking for it to be axed, no one is trying to prevent those who believe it to be an important part of our society (?) from continuing to watch it. Surely there should be no question that if you do not wish to watch it, you shouldn't have to pay for it. As suggested in another post - scramble the channels as everyone else does and we can make our choice. No adverts will be necessary, Jonathan Ross fans will be happy and so will I because I'll get to save over 100 quid a year and spend it on channels I want to watch. In fact, the only things I enjoy from the BBC are some of their period dramas, all of which I buy on DVD - £130 would probably buy every drama shown in the space of a year!

I'm not concerned about adverts on other channels, as suggested by another poster record the programme and skip past them if you really dislike them. Are the BBC just afraid that if we are given the chance to opt out, many of us will and they will either have to rethink spending or start showing more of what the viewers want?

lettuce_leefy

It's about time that we as a NATION, are given the choice to block BBC Progs, giving us the benefit of £135.00 in our Pockets. Let's be honest how many more repeats and black & white progs do we need to see, realistically that's what the BBC is all about.

Give the NATION the choice to receive or block BBC - and that £135.00 will without doubt stay in our pockets :T

If we all stick together regarding TV Licence, Fuel Prices, Council Tax and every other tax the Government can think of to rip us off - we can make a difference. The Americans do it and win, the French do it and win, but we all moan about it in the UK - and do nothing. It's about what is fair to us

Thanks guys

Leefy

hb1966

I used to do a lot of work with the BBC and have seen first hand hour our money is wasted on many things, including alcohol in meetings (in the middle of the day), people who don't have any work spending weeks with their feet up reading the paper (and openly admitting they were being paid for doing absolutely nothing), plus many other things.
It infuriates me that, despite getting some great programmes, we are paying to hold up a wasteful organisation just because "it offers a public service"

bunking_off

Is it worth it? Yes, in my view...one only has to see the dross on ITV/Sky to see what we'd be left with without the BBC pulling up standards.

What I do have an issue is the means of collection. It's an anachronism from the days when a significant minority of the population didn't have a TV. The vast majority of the population do now, and the cost of collection/chasing non-payers must be an overhead. To my mind, the funding should just come from general taxation, to benefit from the economies of scale. If we want it to remain a "per household" fee, then by all means stick it into the council tax (and net off by reducing the central funding into local government, redirecting that from central to BBC).

Also, there's no reason why the BBC should have a monopoly on public funding...why not have a fund that can be distributed to other broadcasters for appropriate programming?

mute_posting

Corona wrote: »

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

Closer to £12 a month now.

If the gov really want's to protect low income households they sould do away with TVL and levy it via pay-tv providers (Sky, virgin etc) because then richer people in society (i.e. those that can afford to spend £40 a month on pay-tv wound still only be paying £52 a month, including the £12ish that they currently pay seperately to TVL) and the lower income families wouldn't be hit with the tax.

<runs for cover>

harryhound

bunking_off wrote: »

Also, there's no reason why the BBC should have a monopoly on public funding...why not have a fund that can be distributed to other broadcasters for appropriate programming?

I thought that was called "The Arts Council"?

Or do they just do subsidised seats at the Royal Opera House?

Nick_C

At £2.60 a week, I think the BBC is an absolute bargain. I do think some money is wasted - I think the Web Site should take adverts and local radio is poor quality and a waste of money IMO. News 24 is also very amateurish, and should be scrapped and replaced with the very professional BBC World. However, I recognise others value these areas, and the overall service is good value for money.

Like many others, I never watch the adverts on the commercial channels. I don't watch them live, instead I record them and watch later, fast forwarding through the advert breaks. The trouble is, funding commercial TV by advertising is probably no longer viable as less and less people watch the adverts, causing the commercial sector to stoop to dodgy practices such as premium phone lines.

I think once analogue is switched off, we may see all TV channels become subscription services, and that is probably when we will be able to scrap the license fee and allow the Beeb to compete and charge on an equal footing while remaining free of adverts.

bobbill1945

does anybody know what the situation is if you stream signals via broadband & not thru a tv ariel; the licence is for 'broadcast tv'. could this be the end of the bbc licence which is too high due to the senior management abuses e.g.the move to manchester was to create jobs here & not pay southeners lots of money to move up here

greedyguts_2

The BBC is famous for it's standards which are achievable because of the license fee... Great!. Why are we also forced to provide the cash for more and more segregated, pigeonholed channels and programs through ever more complicated media?. The BBC is OVERPAID! (so is wossy n co). Aren't they continually justifying the fee by inventing new channels, jobs etc?. Until we get specific personally chosen programming downloaded straight to our brains - most of what the BBC offers is actually irrelevant to most people, most of the time! (everyone has different tastes). Then what the hell does all the of their programming, which I don't care about, have to do with my cash?. Surely we should only be forced to pay for the few channels considered the most mainstream?... The license fee drops and then if paying extra for specific channels, we can really see which of the newer channels and media are necessary!.

Also (not entirely sure of the facts here but...) why do the likes of Chris (unfunny) Moyles etc think that they're so damn popular, when the BBC seem to have a monopoly on national radio?. If there was any real commercial, national competition, then maybe they can justify charging because there are no adverts. There isn't - so they can't!. Tin pot local radio budgets could never match the bbc's channels so there's not really any competition.

(I only watch 2 programs regularly - top gear isn't on at the mo, and the other's not on the bbc... Worth the fee? - not for me!)

johnny_storm

This is another example of what makes me strongly believe that we DO NOT live in a democracy.

75% (at time of typing) voted NO to a continued tv tax. Yet no one will listen, it will continue. We have no say.