TV licence

[Professor.Arturo]

The BBC get the vast majority of that money. I know there was something on the news a few weeks back about Channel 4 getting a small slice, but its really still to fund the BBC.

Do you think their service warrants it? Or would you rather the BBC funded themselves by advertisments or some kind of subscription?

 

I think the licence is outdated and has no place in digital Britain now, with 100's of channels out there via satellite, Cable and freeview. Its my opinion the BBC should fund themselves.

[Tynie b]

The BBC get the vast majority of that money. I know there was something on the news a few weeks back about Channel 4 getting a small slice, but its really still to fund the BBC.

Do you think their service warrants it? Or would you rather the BBC funded themselves by advertisments or some kind of subscription?

 

I think the licence is outdated and has no place in digital Britain now, with 100's of channels out there via satellite, Cable and freeview. Its my opinion the BBC should fund themselves.

 

Agree 100%. I don't watch Much TV at all if I'm honest, it's not easy with a 2year old and a 10 year old (When she's in) But what I do watch is Mostly on Sky...I think my wife Sky+ Eastenders and Holby when shes at work but that's about it, BBC should fund itself or you could subscribe to it if you wanted!

[conn artist]

i dont think people realise how good british TV is. when you go to canada and america and watch tv and see how saturated the tv is with adverts evry 8 minutes and at time outs in sports etc it puts you off watching TV as it feels like groundhog day watching the the same thing over and over. as much as i hate paying the TV lisence i would hate to see adverts on the BBC or any of its channels.

[Horatio Caine]

What I object to is the power the licensing people have. They can enter your home, slap a big fine on you - even have you sent to prison. They also persecute you by letters if you show up as not having a license.

[Professor.Arturo]

What I object to is the power the licensing people have. They can enter your home, slap a big fine on you - even have you sent to prison. They also persecute you by letters if you show up as not having a license.

 

Actually, no they cant, not unless you invite them in. They would need a policeman with them and have a valid search warrant issued, which they very rarely (if ever) get.

[The People's Chimp]

The BBC get the vast majority of that money. I know there was something on the news a few weeks back about Channel 4 getting a small slice, but its really still to fund the BBC.

Do you think their service warrants it? Or would you rather the BBC funded themselves by advertisments or some kind of subscription?

 

I think the licence is outdated and has no place in digital Britain now, with 100's of channels out there via satellite, Cable and freeview. Its my opinion the BBC should fund themselves.

 

A disappointing viewpoint. Fund it with what? yet more banal, mindnumbing adverts? Lose low ratings local or art coverage in the hunt for greater ratings and advertising? An awful prospect.

 

Public service broadcasting is exactly that; a public service. The BBC have done a good job in keeping apace with digital media developments, what with the roll out of further channels, iplayer, online radio playback, increased digital radio stations which cover specific interests - you wouldn't get stations of the calibre of 6music, bbc7, the asian network, 1xtra unless the bbc were behind them. Now they may not be to your specific taste but this coverage is very good and is also, for the cultural benefit of the country, essential.

 

I suppose it comes down to your viewpoint. Do you want the bbc to go the way of the railways? Something which we bemoan at every available opportunity, decry it for the awful service provided, when it is too late to turn back the tide? No thanks.

 

But then I see culture and arts as valuable investments and something every civilised state needs to fund, without regard to profit margins.

[The People's Chimp]

What I object to is the power the licensing people have. They can enter your home, slap a big fine on you - even have you sent to prison. They also persecute you by letters if you show up as not having a license.

 

You're having a laugh. Persecution?

 

This is persecution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8161824.stm

[Say What Again]

I don't watch TV much but when something takes my fancy on the box - it's usually always on BBC. Some of the programmes they've put out over the past few years have been excellent.

 

A few that immediately spring to mind: Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes, Spooks, Waking the Dead, Silent Witness, The Street, Sweeney Todd, and good old MOTD. They've also shown decent US programmes like The Wire, Band of Brothers and Heroes. All of those before I even mention their truly fantastic wildlife programmes and ground breaking documentaries like Planet Earth, Walking With Dinosaurs and Blue Planet.

 

So, if by funding themselves you mean, make them like STV and introduce crap, repetitive, and the worst of all - regional adverts, crap programmes, crap presenters and bring back Scotsport, then I'm not with you.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I'd quite happily pay a licence fee to access the BBC iPlayer from over here. Aussie TV is rank.

 

However, since they don't offer this, I pay a VPN instead to allow me to!

[chrishall]

The BBC get the vast majority of that money. I know there was something on the news a few weeks back about Channel 4 getting a small slice, but its really still to fund the BBC.

Do you think their service warrants it? Or would you rather the BBC funded themselves by advertisments or some kind of subscription?

 

Sorry to sound patronising but you've got a common misconception.

 

License fee does primarily go to the BBC, I will agree with that. However for many years now ITV and Channel 4 have taken (reasonably) large slices of it too to fund their PS programming. Without that money their more 'high-brow' programmes wouldn't get made. Why? Because advertisers aren;t interested in them as they (generally) do not attract bigger audiences. That said many of the programmes are an important part of public service broadcasting (most people will remember the old channel 4 shows that teachers used to tape and show at school).

 

I am sure that if the license fee was scrapped the quality of television in Britain would drop dramatically as the BBC a/ wouldn't have the money to finance innovative programmes such at Wildlife shows and top quality period dramas and b/ wouldhave to follow audience heavy shows such as X-Factor which are cheap to make and attract larger audiences despite being marketed to idiots.

 

I could go on (I studied this at University) but the chances of the license fee being dropped any time in the near future are slim and none. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded they can afford to innovate and try new things as they don't have commerical pressures.

 

A prime example? The BBC iplayer which has now been adopted by every other broadcaster in Britain.

[The People's Chimp]

Another point of note is the political agenda behind the attacks on the licence fee. The main, and most obvious one is the continued attack by Murdoch in each of his mouthpiece newspapers, against the bbc in general and, more specifically, the licence fee. I suppose his thinking is that if people don't require to pay a licence fee, they'll be more willing to spend money on a sky subscription. So, the next time you read an article in the sun or the times attacking the bbc for this or that, bear those vested interests in mind.

[Rick Grimes]

definitely siding with those backing the wonderful job that the BBC does. 11 quid a month for the calibre & breadth of services it offers is fine value IMO.

[bigwull22]

Graham Norton and Jonathan Ross ?10 mill plus per year between them, the BBC should not pay that kind of money. Especially for talentless idiots

[conn artist]

Graham Norton and Jonathan Ross ?10 mill plus per year between them, the BBC should not pay that kind of money. Especially for talentless idiots

 

and they are not going to for much longer as they appear to of learned by those mistakes.

[Rick Grimes]

Graham Norton and Jonathan Ross ?10 mill plus per year between them, the BBC should not pay that kind of money. Especially for talentless idiots

 

that aside, what do you think of the service that the BBC offers in comparison to the competition?

 

the BBC is too easy a target for folk to attack nowadays and you'll miss it when its gone.

[P-Dizzle]

I am happy to play the TV licence fee because of Match Of The Day alone... And next year I hear there is going to be a Championship highlights program on aswell. Its going to be sick.

[bigwull22]

that aside, what do you think of the service that the BBC offers in comparison to the competition?

 

the BBC is too easy a target for folk to attack nowadays and you'll miss it when its gone.

 

The BBC should stick to what its good at, sports, comedy even Drama(too much costume stuff though) documentaries etc, the current claptrap served up on a Saturday though, I think the commrcial channels should be responsible for this not public funds.

[Professor.Arturo]

Sorry to sound patronising but you've got a common misconception.

 

License fee does primarily go to the BBC, I will agree with that. However for many years now ITV and Channel 4 have taken (reasonably) large slices of it too to fund their PS programming. Without that money their more 'high-brow' programmes wouldn't get made. Why? Because advertisers aren;t interested in them as they (generally) do not attract bigger audiences. That said many of the programmes are an important part of public service broadcasting (most people will remember the old channel 4 shows that teachers used to tape and show at school).

 

I am sure that if the license fee was scrapped the quality of television in Britain would drop dramatically as the BBC a/ wouldn't have the money to finance innovative programmes such at Wildlife shows and top quality period dramas and b/ wouldhave to follow audience heavy shows such as X-Factor which are cheap to make and attract larger audiences despite being marketed to idiots.

 

I could go on (I studied this at University) but the chances of the license fee being dropped any time in the near future are slim and none. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded they can afford to innovate and try new things as they don't have commerical pressures.

 

A prime example? The BBC iplayer which has now been adopted by every other broadcaster in Britain.

 

I'm not so sure it would. Sky tv is of pretty decent quality, their sport coverage is second to none, Sky 1 is arguably one of the best general entertainment channels around. As for wildlife, what about Discovery or the National Geographic channels? both self funding, and with programmes from all over the world (yes, some BBC shows included). As for audience heavy shows, the BBC already bombard us with reality tv, talent tv and soaps! junk food for the brain. But I do agree with your last line, these types of show are aimed at and watched by idiots.

[Rick Grimes]

The BBC should stick to what its good at, sports, comedy even Drama(too much costume stuff though) documentaries etc, the current claptrap served up on a Saturday though, I think the commrcial channels should be responsible for this not public funds.

 

 

probably agree about the Saturday night drivel, but for the rest - how would you fund it?

[Hickups]

The BBC is probably the worst channel on air, their programmes are pure pish.

 

I can count on one hand the programmes I watch on the Beep.

 

Why should we pay for them to make programmes which we don't watch?

 

They should raise cash themselves.

 

The license is a rip-off.

[Stewart MacD]

Keep the licence fee.

I am assuming no-one wants adverts on the BBC, so it must be funded by government.

Without a licence fee, that means an annual grovel to the government of the day, who can turn the tap on or off if the Beeb displeases it (which it does quite often, be the government Labour or Conservative).

 

They would earn more revenue if they allowed those of us in TV wasteland here the opportunity to pay an annual fee for BBC iPlayer. Iain Anderson is all I get at present as TV is blocked outside the UK.

[makateer]

Keep it. Not just for the TV, but for the excellent radio and websites as well.

 

Their service is second to none whether you like it or not.

[bigwull22]

probably agree about the Saturday night drivel, but for the rest - how would you fund it?

 

I would happily pay the licence fee in that case, surely they could make money by sdelling comedies/drama and sports coverage etc around the world?

[Regal Kingston]

BBC One and two are very poor these days.

 

With no football being played i think I watch Top gear and repeats of Family Guy and thats it.

 

I fancy the wire but its scheduled to late. It needs a big shake up.

 

It nips my head on a Thursday when BBC1 & 2 both show political shows.

Have a bit of choice FFS!

 

Oh and Mock the week is pretty good and I quite enjoyed celebrity masterchef.......

 

You could pay for every programme you watch (maybe about 10p)

This would soon separate the wheat from the chaff and stop shighty repeats

 

And can I add the One show is fecking balls.

[Gershwin]

as much as i hate paying the TV lisence i would hate to see adverts on the BBC or any of its channels.

 

I'm with you up to that point. Some the content would be lost if they went commercial but the BBC still advertises itself way too much.

[Hasselhoff]

Personally I don't care about adverts now cos Sky+ allows you to skip them all and as time goes by, more and more people will be recording or be able to live pause programs and then fast forward when the ads come on.

 

I resent people like Jonathon Ross and Chris Moyles being paid so much - they don't need that much, nobody does so why waste public money on it? If they leave to go elsewhere, get someone else in who would love to do the job.

[The People's Chimp]

I'm with you up to that point. Some the content would be lost if they went commercial but the BBC still advertises itself way too much.

 

Says the guy in advertising...

[IronJambo]

Keep it. Not just for the TV, but for the excellent radioand websites as well.

 

Their service is second to none whether you like it or not.

 

to be honest, it irritates the hell out of me when radio gets brought into this argument. people pay a tv license for the liberty of having a tv, not a radio. how many people pay for a radio license? to me, its just another example of how the license fee is abused

[Rick Grimes]

I'm not so sure it would. Sky tv is of pretty decent quality, their sport coverage is second to none, Sky 1 is arguably one of the best general entertainment channels around. As for wildlife, what about Discovery or the National Geographic channels? both self funding, and with programmes from all over the world (yes, some BBC shows included). As for audience heavy shows, the BBC already bombard us with reality tv, talent tv and soaps! junk food for the brain. But I do agree with your last line, these types of show are aimed at and watched by idiots.

 

 

self-funding they may be, but by charging you as well as advertising, so its not a straight comparison to say the Beeb should be free & self-funded.

 

 

surely they could make money by sdelling comedies/drama and sports coverage etc around the world?

 

they do. the licence fee doesn't come close to covering all their costs.

 

The BBC is probably the worst channel on air, their programmes are pure pish.

 

with all due respect, that's complete horse****.

[conn artist]

I'm with you up to that point. Some the content would be lost if they went commercial but the BBC still advertises itself way too much.

 

 

i'm aware the beeb advertises itself but its not cheesy IMO but the actual thought of it going the way of itv where shows are sponserd by products and there is product placement and any opportunity to stick in ads would be a huge step down for such a good broadcaster.

[IronJambo]

It took everything I had not to bring up this subject whilst surrounded by many bbc people at a friends birthday last year.

 

I can see the benefits of the bbc but i strongly object to being forced to pay a "subscription fee", its just a stealth tax. I also find it wrong that a "television license" also funds radio.

 

For me, you should have choice in a subscription. That choice shouldn't be to have or not have a tv, but to have or not have the bbc. I choose not to pay for sky sports, so I don't get it.

[makateer]

to be honest, it irritates the hell out of me when radio gets brought into this argument. people pay a tv license for the liberty of having a tv, not a radio. how many people pay for a radio license? to me, its just another example of how the license fee is abused

 

I suppose calling it a TV license is incorrect, not sure why they don't just call it the BBC license fee instead. But it does say that the license fee is used to keep the radio stations ad free, and they are open about it, so I don't think you can seay they are abusing the license fee.

[Professor.Arturo]

Taken from the TV licensing website:

 

Do I need a TV Licence?

 

You will need a TV Licence if you watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV. It doesn't matter what channel you are watching, what device you are using (for example TV, computer or laptop, mobile phone or any other device) or how you are receiving them (for example via terrestrial, satellite, cable, the Internet or any other method)

 

Now you dont even need to have a tv for them to take your money, a pc at home? if your mobile phone can access the internet, thats enough to demand the licence fee from you now.

[The People's Chimp]

It took everything I had not to bring up this subject whilst surrounded by many bbc people at a friends birthday last year.

 

I can see the benefits of the bbc but i strongly object to being forced to pay a "subscription fee", its just a stealth tax. I also find it wrong that a "television license" also funds radio.

 

For me, you should have choice in a subscription. That choice shouldn't be to have or not have a tv, but to have or not have the bbc. I choose not to pay for sky sports, so I don't get it.

 

Do you listen to Radio 1, 2, 5live or Radio Scotland?

 

If you do, would you rather their shows were interrupted by quarterly adverts and no longer pay your so called stealth tax?

[Professor.Arturo]

Do you listen to Radio 1, 2, 5live or Radio Scotland?

 

If you do, would you rather their shows were interrupted by quarterly adverts and no longer pay your so called stealth tax?

It would be acceptable.

Also when football is shown on ITV,C4, C5 etc, the games not interupted, ads are shown during half time, not when a penalty is about to be taken.

 

Your question wasn't aimed at me, but thats just one example, I really dont see ads as a big deal.

[IronJambo]

I suppose calling it a TV license is incorrect, not sure why they don't just call it the BBC license fee instead. But it does say that the license fee is used to keep the radio stations ad free, and they are open about it, so I don't think you can seay they are abusing the license fee.

 

indeed they are, but if i didn't own a tv would i wouldn't have to pay the bbc for the use of the radio. the tv license fee payer would be subsidising me. petty? yes. fair? no.

[IronJambo]

Do you listen to Radio 1, 2, 5live or Radio Scotland?

 

If you do, would you rather their shows were interrupted by quarterly adverts and no longer pay your so called stealth tax?

 

i listen to capital one in the car on the way to and from work and the ads don't bother me at all. its a fair trade to be honest, johnny vaughan and lisa snowdon with adverts instead of a non stop self infactuated and grossly overpaid chris moyles.

 

how is it not a stealth tax? it can hardly be classed as a subscription can it!

[The People's Chimp]

It would be acceptable.

Also when football is shown on ITV,C4, C5 etc, the games not interupted, ads are shown during half time, not when a penalty is about to be taken.

 

Your question wasn't aimed at me, but thats just one example, I really dont see ads as a big deal.

 

Well you could kiss goodbye to the entire post 7pm radio 1 schedule, weekdays and weeknights if adverts and commercial interests were brought on board. The eclecticism of some of the shows and djs is fantastic and, again, we come back to the issue of public service broadcasting.

 

Within a year advertisers would have radio 1 a hellish hybrid of galaxy and smooth fm. That's what would happen. Xfm in scotland lasted about 2 years trying to cover the indie market, and failed. The same would apply when radio 1 tried to match up commercial interests with someone like rob da bank, annie mac, annie nightingale, fabio and grooverider, bobby friction and nihal. This is just an example, focusing on one area, but it applies to Radio scotland equally. Would advertisers be queiing up for Ian Anderson's show? Or the country dance shows that are on a saturday night?

 

No, and they'd be goners in this brave new commercial world, depriving people of access to new folk music or OAP's to an important link to their history and their memories. All of this would be gone.

 

Okay, the bbc could sell a load of advertising opn the back of their wildlife shows, but it's the smaller stuff which is the backbone of a cultural service which would disappear.

 

You may say you don't like the dance music coverage of radio 1 at the weekends, but say that to a million plus youth listeners, or the asian beats of nihal, again, that has a market which would otherwise be ignored or cheapened. The same applies to the radio scotland schedule and so on, across the board...

 

People talk about "stealth taxation" but that's a misnomer. Would they rather there was no "stealth tax" but that the rate of income tax went up another 2% to cover essential services? You can bet the party that introduced that would be out on their ears before you could say "motion of no confidence" and the end result would be increased public debt to cover essentials and an ever debilitating public infrastructure. This is going off on a bit of a tangent, so getting back on track....

 

You can criticse the bbc, but for me, it is one of the finest and proudest organisations in the world, because of the service it provides.

[Rick Grimes]

gotta say, I'm very pleased by some of the strident defences of the BBC in this thread. its a total bugbear of mine, so its good to see I'm not alone, although less good to be in the majority in the attached poll.

[N User]

I think it's good to have state funded tv and the BBC should continue to be funded by the TV license.

I do however disagree with how that money is spent on celebrity stars and shows such as huge salaries for people like Jonny Woss.

[P-Dizzle]

gotta say, I'm very pleased by some of the strident defences of the BBC in this thread. its a total bugbear of mine, so its good to see I'm not alone, although less good to be in the majority in the attached poll.

 

Ye, Im sick of people just looking for stuff to complain about paying for. Taking aside all the decent programs on.

 

We are very lucky in the UK, our TV licence pays for the BBC News worldwide. We have a huge news organisation and because its not owned by rupert murdoch there isnt an agenda behind their broadcasting. People dont know how important our news broadcasts are around the globe.

[The People's Chimp]

gotta say, I'm very pleased by some of the strident defences of the BBC in this thread. its a total bugbear of mine, so its good to see I'm not alone, although less good to be in the majority in the attached poll.

 

Yeah, the BBC as a public service broadcaster - independent of Government and of Commercial needs - is something I feel strongly about.

 

I notice that not too many of the 32 - thus far - who have voted for it "paying its own way" have posted their reasons for this. Seems to me that for many, sadly, it's easier to jump on the bandwagon of knee jerk public opinion than actually think of the reasons why. Clearly I'm not including those who have debated the point - just I get the feeling that a lot of people who say they want rid of the licence fee would be pretty quick in complaining about the services that no longer existed.

[P-Dizzle]

Its not just for us. BBC world broadcast in countries where there isnt a free press. Its very important that we keep this neutral broadcaster, and Match Of the Day because i love it.

 

And if it means that people like Graham Norton get paid over the odds then so be it. We cant please everyone.

[Miller Jambo 60]

Yeah, the BBC as a public service broadcaster - independent of Government and of Commercial needs - is something I feel strongly about.

 

I notice that not too many of the 32 - thus far - who have voted for it "paying its own way" have posted their reasons for this. Seems to me that for many, sadly, it's easier to jump on the bandwagon of knee jerk public opinion than actually think of the reasons why. Clearly I'm not including those who have debated the point - just I get the feeling that a lot of people who say they want rid of the licence fee would be pretty quick in complaining about the services that no longer existed.

 

No adverts , thats a sound quality.

[Professor.Arturo]

Yeah, the BBC as a public service broadcaster - independent of Government and of Commercial needs - is something I feel strongly about.

 

I notice that not too many of the 32 - thus far - who have voted for it "paying its own way" have posted their reasons for this. Seems to me that for many, sadly, it's easier to jump on the bandwagon of knee jerk public opinion than actually think of the reasons why. Clearly I'm not including those who have debated the point - just I get the feeling that a lot of people who say they want rid of the licence fee would be pretty quick in complaining about the services that no longer existed.

You got me wrong. Apart from reality and talent ***** that I mentioned, the BBC do provide a good service, but thats not my point.

You say nobody has posted a reason, well here's my reason;

Freedom of choice. We dont have that freedom, its enforced on us all whether we like it or not "you will buy a tv licence and thats final"

Not allowing people the freedom to choose is outdated, and rather draconian in my opinion.

[The People's Chimp]

You got me wrong. Apart from reality and talent ***** that I mentioned, the BBC do provide a good service, but thats not my point.

You say nobody has posted a reason, well here's my reason;

Freedom of choice. We dont have that freedom, its enforced on us all whether we like it or not "you will buy a tv licence and thats final"

Not allowing people the freedom to choose is outdated, and rather draconian in my opinion.

 

I suppose we disagree on the role of the state. Would you, however, like people the freedom to choose not to fund the NHS, the police, the education system, museums, the arts?

[Professor.Arturo]

I suppose we disagree on the role of the state. Would you, however, like people the freedom to choose not to fund the NHS, the police, the education system, museums, the arts?

Not quite the same thing. You cant compare a health service and law enforcement with what is basically an entertainment medium.

 

Every western country collect taxes to pay for health and welfare, thats normal, ok except America where you need health insurance. But television is something different altogether. As you said, the BBC is independant of the state so that argument is invalid.

 

I have not checked, but I'd be interested to find out what other democratic countries (if any) force their citizens to buy a licence to fund a broadcaster.

[The People's Chimp]

Not quite the same thing. You cant compare a health service and law enforcement with what is basically an entertainment medium.

 

Every western country collect taxes to pay for health and welfare, thats normal, ok except America where you need health insurance. But television is something different altogether. As you said, the BBC is independant of the state so that argument is invalid.

 

I have not checked, but I'd be interested to find out what other democratic countries (if any) force their citizens to buy a licence to fund a broadcaster.

 

It's more than that though, that's my point. It isn't simply about TV, but about the importance of the public role that the BBC plays.

 

Your second argument about independence is a semantic one; it is independent of Government, in that control of it is independeant, but it remains a public body.

 

To argue that this is now an issue of "freedom" and "democracy" is typical nowadays, but basically you're positing a neo-libertarian free market argument; let the market decide! For all the reasons given before, if we leave the market to decide then we'll be in a culturally moribund desert.

[Coco]

 

To argue that this is now an issue of "freedom" and "democracy" is typical nowadays, but basically you're positing a neo-libertarian free market argument; let the market decide! For all the reasons given before, if we leave the market to decide then we'll be in a culturally moribund desert.

 

Why would that be?

 

Why - in a world of virtually free content delivery - would bad content drive out the good?

 

I don't have strong feelings about the TV licence - I think I get value for money from Test Match Special in particular. The way in which the menaces try to enforce collection is a disgrace though.