Anyway. Who here, would pay for the BBC, if it were not compulsory ?.

+1

The BBC is awesome. I could live without F1 very easily.

Anybody who slags the BBC should be sentenced to 12 hours of watching TVNZ, on Shortland Street omnibus day. My parents are both intelligent people, but they watch “Dog the Bounty Hunter” as it’s the best thing on TV on a friday night.

Long live the BBC !

Anyway. Who here, would pay for the BBC, if it were not compulsory ?.

Given what Sky/Virgin costs, it seems quite good value for money really. So yes, I would continue to pay for it.

Who here, would pay for the BBC, if it were not compulsory ?.

I’d pay twice the fee if necessary.

Jamie. CaptJon.

Yes, it was a genuine Q, so thanks for the answers.

I suspect that there would be quite a few who would.

I suspect that there would be quite a few who would.

I would be curious as to who would not pay for it, and forego all the radio, tv, internet and other services that the BBC offers.

I would be curious as to who would not pay for it, and forego all the radio, tv, internet and other services that the BBC offers.

Yeap, keep going.

The way I look at it is like this, the BBC is like a bus service

If you mean, like a bus service that extorts money from you on threat of prosecution even if you intended on walking instead of getting the bus, then yes.

The BBC is brilliant.

I have lived in the states where TV is scary – after watching it for a couple of years its no surprise they are a bunch of illiterate right wing muppets.

its no surprise they are a bunch of illiterate right wing muppets.

To be fair, it’s only the illiterate right wing muppets that are illiterate right wing muppets.

Another +1 for paying if it was not madatory. The BBC is fantastic value. If you’ve been to pretty much any other country in the world I don’t see how you can doubt that. IMO it forces the commercial stations to keep their standards up (not as high as I’d like all the time but definitely better than what’s shown abroad) to compete.

id pay if it wasnt mandatory

If you mean, like a bus service that extorts money from you on threat of prosecution even if you intended on walking instead of getting the bus, then yes.

Sell your TV, don’t pay the license fee?

I’d pay the license fee just for the radio stations

There’s nothing better than sticking radio 4 on during the day while pottering about in the garden. Its aural equivalent of having someone stroke your head while making you a nice cup of tea and some toast. I can’t wait to retire so that I can do it full time 😀

Fortunately, you don’t need a licence to own a TV.

Jamie,

To be fair, it’s only the illiterate right wing muppets that are illiterate right wing muppets.

I accept there are some exceptions and I put that down to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Fortunately, you don’t need a licence to own a TV.

At the risk of being dragged down into the dark, cold depths of the small print.

At every point of sale that I have purchased a TV, I have been informed that I must provide details which will be passed to the licensing Authority.

Who then dispense said threatening letters, etc, until you prove you are licensed.

So. Please do enlighten me.

I’d happily pay more.
The real issue is the mutually exclusive concepts of good and popular. I would happily pay more for the good, and even more to try and avoid the popular..

Another +1 for paying if it was not madatory. The BBC is fantastic value.

Same here.

But the thing is that part of what makes it so great is that payment is mandatory, so they have a guaranteed income which can be spent on more minority interest programs.

Much as the mandatory license fee annoys folk (often the same folk who happily pay out much, much more to Sky/Virgin) it is difficult to see any other way to fund the Beeb that would allow it to continue as a public service broadcaster.

The only beef with the beeb is the cost control. It was run by the lovies for years and it rightly needs some challenge on some of the things it is/was paying for.

That said I’d still be happy to pay if it was voluntary.

So. Please do enlighten me.

You need a licence to receive broadcast TV signals, that’s it. Owning a TV is fine, watching dvd’s, playing games, watching iplayer are all ok.

I will add that Radio 4 comedy needs a shot in the arm, and possibly the face, as it has been piss poor for several years now.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TVVZ75J7cQ[/video]

You need a licence to receive broadcast TV signals, that’s it. Owning a TV is fine, watching dvd’s, playing games, watching iplayer are all ok

Yes, a correct technicality. I think I now recall that there was a test case.

However, that doesn’t stop the rude, thuggish letters.
I’ve seen one or two and I think they are way OTT, born of an arrogance that you have to pay.

If the BBC was a service you voluntarily paid for ( as most here would glady do ).

Then the nasty letters Dept would be out of a job….
Oh !, hang on…. would that be a cost saving ?.
😉

Life is sooooo much better (and somewhat cheaper) Without TV …. as ive recently found out for myself 🙂

If the BBC was a service you voluntarily paid for ( as most here would glady do ).

is that in the same way that most here pay for STW are Premium mebers and make donations to the site for sales.
You would just have people free loading if it was not compulsory as you do on here and in life in general

Funny how the Beeb losing F1 is having such an effect on everyone.

I personally would love to see my national team playing the Aussie’s in the Rugby Union Autumn internationals, but guess what they’re on Sky, the same goes for the cricket.

It’s the way of the world people, money talks get over it!!

TBH in this case it is greed talking F1 and bernie are not exactly short of a few bob – I would vent at him rather than the BBC

You need a licence to receive broadcast TV signals, that’s it. Owning a TV is fine, watching dvd’s, playing games, watching iplayer are all ok

Pretty sure that owning a TV capable of receiving terrestrial TV is the requirement for paying the license, not actually watching it. As such, there was a test case where a guy removed the tuner from his tv so that there was no way it could receive terrestrial signals and made the case successfully that he didn’t have to pay the license.

The thing with F1 is that people are complaining because they perceive that the choice was between half of the F1 free and live or all of the F1 free and live whereas I reckon it was more the case that the choice was between no F1 or half of it…

uwe-r – Member
The only beef with the beeb is the cost control. It was run by the lovies for years and it rightly needs some challenge on some of the things it is/was paying for.

This I agree with but it’s happening already and changes have been afoot for a while but like most big companies change of culture takes time.

What JY said up there…can’t understand why people think it’s the Beeb’s fault…it would be ridiculous of them to just keep throwing money at it until they outbid Sky. Why don’t people get on twitter, facebook, etc and flame the shit out of the F1 drivers, team principles, etc. They’re the ones selling out (well, I know it’s not them personally, more Bernie et al).

I flipping hate F1 and nearly all motorsport and won’t miss it but I see from the F1 threads here every week that it’s hugely popular with a lot of people and for that reason I’m sorry that those people can’t continue to watch it.

You would just have people free loading if it was not compulsory as you do on here and in life in general

You already have that to a small degree with the Beeb. Some folks (e.g. pypdjl above) proudly proclaim that they don’t have a license, but happily watch BBC stuff on iplayer, use the BBC website and listen to BBC radio.

None of that requires a TV License, legally speaking, but it is paid for with license money, so morally speaking they are still free-loading (to me anyway).

to me anyway

And me.

Pretty sure that owning a TV capable of receiving terrestrial TV is the requirement for paying the license, not actually watching it.

Nope, completely wrong I’m afraid. It’s nothing to do with owning any equipment, you have to actually receive the signal.

so morally speaking they are still free-loading (to me anyway).

It’s not a moral question when one party is hanging a legal club over your head. Morally I might be happy to watch some ITV, for example, without forking out for a licence, but legally I can’t.

Everyone receives the signal as it is broadcast and then transmitted. It is about whether you watch it – and whether your tv us tuned into to be able to watch transmissions if you are denying you watch

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

Morally I might be happy to watch some ITV, for example, without forking out for a licence, but legally I can’t.

That’s right, because the Communications Act 2003 legally requires you to hold a license if you watch any broadcast telly.

You don’t pay it to watch the BBC. You pay it to watch ANY telly and the money from it funds the BBC.

Look at it this way, they are basically saying, “Okay you can melt your brains with ‘Danny Dyer’s Best of Big Celebrity Talent Pets In The Jungle 5’ as long as you at least let us try to provide you with something more edifying.”

It’s the equivalent to letting people smoke but using the money from smoking tax to try and encourage them to stop.

deadlydarcy – Member

I flipping hate F1 and nearly all motorsport and won’t miss it but I see from the F1 threads here every week that it’s hugely popular with a lot of people and for that reason I’m sorry that those people can’t continue to watch it.

Jeez DD, are you sure you belong here? STW standard response seems to be to take delight out of other peoples’ disappointment…

We have a little ancient TV somewhere but never watch it.
Occasionally use Iplayer maybe once a month. I’ve been considering dumping the license along with the scrap TV, but Mrs Mc thinks it’s worth it morally for Radio 4. Perhaps so.

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

OK, I’m bang to rights… oops. Maybe it’s changed to take account of new ways of accessing it then

Jeez DD, are you sure you belong here? STW standard response seems to be to take delight out of other peoples’ disappointment…

🙂

I’m not really feeling myself.

*googles therapists, brizzle*

I listen to Zane Lowe on the way home from work (25 minute journey) 8 days a month. Don’t use any of the other BBC services available yet i’m legally obliged to pay £125 a year.

I don’t mind paying for Sky because I watch some of the programmes and the kids love their zany cartoons. Surely a BBC subscription fee would be fairer. Those who love and use the BBC could pay twice if they wished.