Forum menu
I agree entirely with the positive comments. Having a few years ago spent time overseas with just the World Service - which was a real godsend - and a decade later being abroad with kids and having cbeebies on demand, not to mention the rest of iplayer, 5 live, 6 music, radio 4, ken bruce (for the Mrs), I think the BBC is fantastic.
Although I'm not paying a licence fee ATM, I have no issues with paying it when we get back, and would be prepared to pay some kind of overseas version - e.g. the money I currently pay for a proxy server to listen to the footie - if it were available.
😀
It has a lot of detractors, but anyone who has spent time in another country can appreciate that it's really very good indeed and pretty good value for money.
Got it in one! If only they (along with, I accept, most media producers) would wake up to the concept of being in c21st, the fact that you can get most things of interest for free online within minutes of it being broadcast anyway, and arrange a legitimate way for this to happen (and yes, I'd happily pay).
Although I'm not paying a licence fee ATM, I have no issues with paying it when we get back, and would be prepared to pay some kind of overseas version
"BBC launches global iPlayer app" 6.99 euro per month
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322604
I'm sure anyone with kids will agree that CBBC and CBeebies are worth the license fee alone
If Lord Reiths original goal for the BBC was to 'inform, educate and entertain', then kids programmes like Horrible Histories absolutely nail that. It's superb!
Would anyone else other than the BBC make a programme like that? Not a chance!
richmars - a point well made!
Another good reason [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search?q=kraftwerk ]Kraftwerk[/url] IMO
BBC launches global iPlayer app" 6.99 euro per month
Great - I just need to buy an iPad now 😕
I rarely watch the TV but am more than happy to pay the licence fee, if only for radio 4.
Just remember all of those watching for free via view on-demand, the programs have to be funded in some form or other.
I always get annoyed when the anti-BBC bunch (especially the Times and Sunday Times) can never tell me what I am going to get if the BBC got scrapped. It is fantastic value for money, I may not like all of it - but there is huge amounts that I like and treasure. I know how much I pay for Virgin and Sky Sports - and the Beeb is cheap. If the cricket was on public TV then Sky Sports would go!
the times is owned by murdoch, along with sky. Doesn't want the competition does he.
Do you need a TV license to listen to BBC radio?
I could live without BBC TV as there is some cracking stuff on the commercial channels, for example;
The Wire
The Sopranos
Game of Thrones
Walking Dead
True Blood
Boardwalk Empire
Seinfeld
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Dexter
BBC TV is just ok IMHO, the only thing I would miss is probably Ski Sunday and the odd doc. Really enjoyed Sicily Unpacked.
Do you need a TV license to listen to BBC radio?
Nope. Like the on-demand and web stuff it is paid for by the license fee, but you don't have to pay a license fee to use it.
I can see them changing that model in the future sometime, but they can't do much about radio unless they get everyone onto DAB with encoder cards.
Yep.I'm sure anyone with kids will agree that CBBC and CBeebies are worth the license fee alone
I've never been a fan of the charging model as I don't like being forced to pay something, might as well call it a tax. However that aside I do think the BBC provides a great service when you stop and think how much you use it (TV, radio, website, iPlayer).
I've never been a fan of the charging model as I don't like being forced to pay something, might as well call it a tax. However that aside I do think the BBC provides a great service when you stop and think how much you use it (TV, radio, website, iPlayer).
But you're not forced to pay for it! Anyway, I concur with the general view that the BBC provides excellent VFM.
This thread is mental.
The question isn't whether the BBC knock out some decent stuff.
Obviously they do.
The question is how is should be funded.
1. draconian TV tax ?.
2. Just directly fund it from the general tax take ?.
(I'm sure our tax pounds are squandered on less worthy stuff)
3. Private sector, Bad-verts ?.
I for one am against the TV license, pseudo TV tax and the heavy handed attitude the TV licensing authority has towards the public.
Who are all Crims, in the eyes of the TVLA.
Go figure.
🙂
I've never been a fan of the charging model as I don't like being forced to pay something, might as well call it a tax. However that aside I do think the BBC provides a great service when you stop and think how much you use it (TV, radio, website, iPlayer).
If it was an option, I'd happily opt out of receiving BBC TV channels and just watch the odd thing catchup style on iPlayer.
The licence fee is good value but I'd like to have the choice rather than it being imposed just because I own a tv and therefore have the ability to watch 'live' BBC channels.
[i]The licence fee is good value but I'd like to have the choice [b]rather than it being imposed just because I own a tv[/b] and therefore have the ability to watch 'live' BBC channels[/i]
Good post !.
The licence fee is good value but I'd like to have the choice rather than it being imposed just because I own a tv and therefore have the ability to watch 'live' BBC channels.
What better model is there?
Would you be prepared to pay an extra £20 a year for the same BBC, just to cover the costs of administering a new decoder card system?
The licence fee is good value but I'd like to have the choice rather than it being imposed just because I own a tv and therefore have the ability to watch 'live' BBC channels.
you do have a choice.
don't pay it.
watch iplayer.
you do have a choice.don't pay it.
watch iplayer.
But I still need a licence to use my TV to watch other channels (ITV or C4 etc), despite they're not under the licencing scheme.
I thought you needed a licence if you have any receiver in your house with the ability to enable you to watch 'live' TV, even if you don't watch BBC?
Love the music documentaries on BBC 4 but would happily pay the licence fee for 6 music alone.
I have no problems with it being a forced fee regardless of whether I use it, it provides a lot of good educational programmes that benefit society from kids to adulthood. Without it the country would be a poorer place. Call it a hidden tax if you like, but I don't think it is at all and I can't see the reason for the animosity towards it, especially from those who are positive about the contents. It's reasonable to assume that those who use the technology and undoubtedly the programmes (via internet/radio) that was largely developed by the BBC, pay something towards it. It's not exactly expensive.
[i]pay something towards it. It's not exactly expensive[/i]
Lets not get into the ability to pay, or fee increases, the millions squandered on paying [i]Celebs[/i], etc.
Paying for it, is the logical thing to do, but couldn't it come out of the general revenue collected, rather than having its own, [b]heavily[/b] enforced tax, psuedo licensing, scheme.
The TVLA are big time bully boys, their default position being that you must own a TV and so you must pay.
Fund the BBC from the general tax take, which is partly contributed to, from retail sales of new TV and radio sets.
Stop the licensing scheme.
I thought you needed a licence if you have any receiver in your house with the ability to enable you to watch 'live' TV, even if you don't watch BBC?
They had to change the rules so it's now got to be shown that you're viewing live tv rather than just having the equipment. Otherwise you'd need a tv licence for a smart phone, or even just any internet connection.
Fund the BBC from the general tax take, which is partly contributed to, from retail sales of new TV and radio sets.Stop the licensing scheme.
Your solution to being "forced to pay" appears to be "force everyone to pay it even if they don't own a tv" ?
+1 GrahamS
[i]Your solution to being "forced to pay" appears to be "force everyone to pay it even if they don't own a tv" ? [/i]
Well, everyone funds our wars and armourments and bank bail-outs, whether they want them or not.
Any other obvious short comings of the general taxation system you'd like to point out for everyone ?.
🙄
[i]They had to change the rules so it's now got to be shown that you're viewing live tv rather than just having the equipment. Otherwise you'd need a tv licence for a smart phone, or even just any internet connection[/i]
Ah, so enforcement becomes more complex.
Hands up who wants to guess how much money could be saved from scraping the individual licensing scheme and its [b]enforcement[/b]....
😉
Would it be wrong to suggest that the general population who dislike the TV licence are usually the same ones who want cyclists to pay "road tax" too? 😕
FWIW, other countries in Europe have similar schemes ie: France, but you do not see the same quality of programming coming from it's funding (maybe with the exception of some of Arte's output)
When the BBC can put hour and a half programs on like last nights Bomber Boys - The license fee is worth every penny in my view....!!!
Any other obvious short comings of the general taxation system you'd like to point out for everyone ?.
Certainly. Keeping the license fee system means it is effectively a hypothecated tax.
This keeps the whole system pretty transparent and accountable. For example, [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/download/index.shtml ]the BBC Trust publishes a full financial statements[/url] and public reports on how it is fairing.
Amalgamating into general taxation would lose this transparency and put our public broadcaster further into state control. It's hard to objectively criticise a politician if they have direct influence over your budget for the next year.
Well they say you can't please all the people all the time, but the fact that the vast majority of us appear to be satisfied with its output shows that the Beeb must be doing as well as humanly possible.
There will always be a few people in tinfoil hats.
Amalgamating into general taxation would lose this transparency
There is no reason why this should be the case. A directly taxed system would be far less regressive, and scrapping the licensing system would obviously save some cash into the bargain.
[i]There will always be a few people in tinfoil hats.[/i]
Err, yeah, right.
And you'll be wearing a latex body suit, which unrolls from top to bottom, with room above your head for a tall hat ?.....
I don't recall ^^^ anyone saying that the BBC doesn't produce some good stuff.
It does.
I just don't like the license fee.
Like everyone else here, it would seem.
I am happy to fund the BBC for the parts I like and happy to fund it for others who's tastes in entertainment may not be happily aligned with my own.
😉
However, can someone please find a better way of funding the BBC is, what I say.
and yes Graham, I do see your point about conflict of interest, state control, etc.
Again, who ever claimed the general tax system was perfect ?.
I could live without BBC TV as there is some cracking stuff on the commercial channels, for example;The Wire
The Sopranos
Game of Thrones
Walking Dead
True Blood
Boardwalk Empire
Seinfeld
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Dexter
Not one of the programmes on that list was produced by those commercial channels though, as good as they are, they're all second hand.
There is no reason why this should be the case.
True, but it does seem to be the case in the main. Look at "road tax", petrol tax etc. If it was kept as a hypothecated tax then that might help, but that is effectively the same thing as a license.
However, can someone please find a better way of funding the BBC is, what I say.
and yes Graham, I do see your point about conflict of interest, state control, etc.
Again, who ever claimed the general tax system was perfect ?.
Completely agree. I'd also love to see a better way of paying for the Beeb. One that properly takes into account on-demand, radio, internet and TV products and that is easy to use, cheap to collect, transparent and doesn't force payment on anyone.
But I don't know what that would look like.
I'd happily pay an additional one off fee of £500 if they got rid of Pat, Tony, Helen and Tom from The Archers.