[Closed] BBC Licence fee

try living in a country without the BBC.

'so, politician our owners approve of, would you like to tell us how great your policies are?'

Besides which, it's simply more efficient to consume news in an online format.

Handily the BBC can help you with that too...

'so, politician our owners approve of, would you like to tell us how great your policies are?'

Keep the licence fee, in fact raise it, the BBC's great, although having said that C4 manage to be almost as good and still have adverts (but IIRC their licence if heavily biased towards factual TV?).

Get rid of the mandatory fee. Let people pay a subscription for it if they want it, or buy content on demand.

The problems with this as I see it are:

1) people won't pay, they'll just download the torrent.
2) It's like VED/road tax. You pay it upfront then it's free so you tend to use it more than you would on a pay per view (or pay as you drive) basis. The difference, unlike driving, is I believe it's in the national interest to have stuff like question time, radio 4, BBC news (if you think it's bad, just try watching anything else for 5 minutes without poking your eyes out), OU programing, etc. It boils down to What do you want more of, yet another re-hash of pop-idol or big brother insipiring kids to become coked up 'celbrities', or Brian Cox discussing physics inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers?

Keep it, it's a valuable institution and importantly freed from the need to keep advertisers and other backers happy it's unbiased.

For the sake of £10 a month or whatever it costs it's a bargain - we pay Sky multiples of that and still get bombarded with ads.

I would personally prefer it if they reduced output and increased quality, but in that respect they're well ahead of ITV (no one needs ITV4) and Sky (1200 channels, of which you'll watch about 4 that aren't BBC, ITV or C4 based).

I've lived abroad, trust me the BBC is very much worth the fee. Where else would Countyfile etc be made?

I don't watch much terrestrial TV but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect the shows I do watch, the Beeb forces the competition to meet a standard.

I figure when you get lefties saying it's too righty and righties saying it's too leftie, it must be about in the middle somewhere.

[quote=P-Jay ]we [b]choose to [/b]pay Sky multiples of that and still get bombarded with ads.

I figure when you get lefties saying it's too righty and righties saying it's too leftie, it must be just shit.

we choose to pay

Yeah, that really needed clarifying. 🙄

I figure when you get lefties saying it's too righty and righties saying it's too leftie, it must be about in the middle somewhere.

[quote=deadlydarcy ]

we choose to pay

when you get lefties saying keep the licence fee, I think the lefties might not fully understand what leftism really means. 🙂

It's the single most regressive tax in the UK. There's nothing else like it.

It's hard to claim that a national TV service is not a "necessary" utility, and so apart from a few grumpy old buggers who dont watch TV lest their minds are warped by lizardnews, and another couple of dozen with de-tuned TVs, a pile of DVDs and claim that they only watch stuff on iplayer, it's literally the only "poll tax" in the country.

Even VAT is linked to consumption and excludes necessities. Like cake. And that's a bad-boy regressive tax too.

[quote=Stoner ]It's hard to claim that a national TV service is not a "necessary" utility, No, it's pretty easy.

If we really want some form of Public Service Broadcasting then it should be fully costed, fully funded and farmed out via competitive tender.

Handily the BBC can help you with that too...

It boils down to What do you want more of, yet another re-hash of pop-idol or big brother insipiring kids to become coked up 'celbrities', or Brian Cox discussing physics inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers?

If we really want some form of Public Service Broadcasting then it should be fully costed, fully funded and farmed out via competitive tender.

which a lot of non-news programming is already.

However for editorial control, it's pretty clear that you have to keep most of the PBS stuff in house if you want a semblance of impartiality. Or we could outsource it to Russia Today I suppose....

Surely "Public Service Broadcasting" and "competitive tender" are pretty incompatible ideas.

Anyone making a competitive tender will be looking to make a profit and the point of public service broadcasting is to cover some of the non-profitable bits.

adverts ? really ? the thought of childrens programming (which is utterly superb btw and 1000% better than when we were kids) being interspersed with adverts for plastic crap made in china or added sugar drinks and snacks? NO WAY, just try watching the adverts on C5 during milkshake with a 4yo

sponsored programs? once you start with products in drama then it's a short hop to factual content that 'reviews' products, then the news and journalism is tainted by association

I'd like to stick with the licence fee please - if you really don't want to pay it, just unscrew the aerial lead and see how often you actually watch BBC content, and no iplayer or BBC online services ok ?

The fact is though a couple of hours of decent programming a week are costing us £5 billion quid a year or however much it is.

[quote=GrahamS ]Surely "Public Service Broadcasting" and "competitive tender" are pretty incompatible ideas.
Anyone making a competitive tender will be looking to make a profit and the point of public service broadcasting is to cover some of the non-profitable bits.
Not at all. Decide what TV programmes are providing a "Public Service" and get someone to make/transmit them (as someone already suggested, aren't there some terms within the C4 license?)

The BBC is brilliant and apart from Eastenders is well worth the licence fee. I really don't understand the love of Eastenders and why it has to be on quite so much, even Emmerdale and Corrie are more 'real life' they at least have washing machines!!

I'd prefer to see the BBC distanced from any political influences than anything else.

Compared to Spanish TV it's [b]very[/b] unbiased, and that includes both the public and private broadcasters.

costing us £5 billion quid a year or however much it is

License fee revenue is £3,722 million a year, or at least it was in 2014.

Commercial income (from licensing etc) generates £1,340 million.

Total operating costs are £4,738 million.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/2014/executive/finances/licence_fee.html

Sky TV, Media and Sports pulls in £7.6 billion revenue a year.
https://corporate.sky.com/about-sky/reports

just try watching the adverts on C5 during milkshake with a 4yo

Try "Tiny Pop" it's even worse. 🙁

Worth it for Top Gear alone.

[quote=Drac ]Worth it for Top Gear alone. 😆
Top Gear apparently makes lots and lots of money so doesn't need a license fee....

So those trusty politicians, completely uninfluenced by the commercial TV market and who aren't irritated by their lack of control, suggest pulling down the core funding of the BBC.

Of course they're not financially or politically motivated 😯

Top Gear apparently makes lots and lots of money so doesn't need a license fee....

The BBC isn't perfect but it's so much better than the majority of TV, Radio, or web news.
However the license fee is outdated and on one level why should those who don't use the BBC subsidise people like me. Subscription has been talked about but how would that work for radio?
Whatever replaces the license fee model it must not turn it into another advertising funded media organisation.

why should those who don't use the BBC subsidise people like me.

Because that's how national institutions work. I've never used the welfare state but I don't object to paying for it.

Not getting a penny off me till they drop shite like the voice and bring back Wogan and AJP Taylor style historical lectures.

Doesn't wogan still have a radio 2 show? Sounds like you owe them ha'penny.

edit: oh, Wogan the show... before my time that.

I like BBC but I certainly do not want to owe some ZMs a living so I propose 50% reduction in fees, which means they should cut out all the crap programmes from being broadcasted if their funding are cut by 50%.

So people don't want to pay the licence fee yet somehow want to keep advert free boradcasting from the BBC, are these the same people that won't pay £1.49 a month to hide the ads on here?

I like BBC but I certainly do not want to owe some ZMs a living so I propose 50% reduction in fees, which means they should cut out all the crap programmes from being broadcasted if their funding are cut by 50%.

Trouble is no one would agree which are the good and which the crap. So Everyone should be equally (un)happy.

For every Wolf Hall there is a Mrs. Brown's Boys*

For less than 50p a day split between a household, I personally think it pretty good value.

*whilst not bringing out the cliche about 'worth the fee for this alone....' Wolf Hall was absoulutely fantastic as a piece of drama. I have no doubt someone else has the completely opposite view re. Mrs. Brown's Boys. Fair enough, both of us enjoyed something. That's how public service broadcasting should work.

Wolf Hall was absoulutely fantastic as a piece of drama. I have no doubt someone else has the completely opposite view re. Mrs. Brown's Boys. Fair enough, both of us enjoyed something. That's how public service broadcasting should work.

BBC News is independent and unbiased (as much as is possible). This keeps Sky etc in line and they in turn, stay pretty unbiased to compete.

This is rubbish, all UK broadcasters are required to be unbiased in News by Ofcom otherwise they sanctioned. Russia Today has been threatened - see [url= http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/10/russia-today-ofcom-sanctions-impartiality-ukraine-coverage ]here[/url]

Keep it and also charge those who watch iplayer on their tablets, laptops etc. six television channels, six radio stations that include R4 R6 Music and R4 Extra not forgetting R5. All this and no adverts, I would pay more.

Wolf Hall was absoulutely fantastic as a piece of drama. I have no doubt someone else has the completely opposite view re. Mrs. Brown's Boys. Fair enough, both of us enjoyed something. That's how public service broadcasting should work.

Haven't seen Wolf Hall and can't stand MBB but I totally agree. They should be spending the licence fee on original dramas, comedies, documentaries, quality childrens' programs, etc as well as news/current affairs - not shit like Bargain Hunt, quiz/reality/talent shows and imported tv series/films (except in exceptional circumstances).

Agree almost entirely (I like MBB and haven't watched Wolfhall).

I think they should avoid bidding for major sporting events though, I know some fans really like some commentators, but is there really any need for a bidding war between ITV and the Beeb over stuff like the Olympics? If there was a danger of some sports getting no coverage at all (track cycling), not being really suited to add breaks (F1) or being entirely on Sky (Darts?) then maybe it's justified, but there's no reason to even bid on the World cup etc is there?.

And some drama bought in probably wouldnt get shown in the UK except on the beeb (the Bridge, the killing etc) as they just don't get big enough audiences.

And some drama bought in probably wouldnt get shown in the UK except on the beeb (the Bridge, the killing etc) as they just don't get big enough audiences.

ITV3 showed "Those who kill", the very good Irish series "Love/Hate" was on Channel 5, I am sure there are more. Buying foreign series is much cheaper than producing your own on the whole and they all have a lots of channels to fill.

It should move to a subscription-based model. The "You might have a TV so we'll threaten you until you give us some money" system is antiquated and annoying. I'd happily pay a fee for Radio 4, but that's about the only BBC content I use. The news is middling to bad, the TV shows are generally middling to awful with the occasional gem.

I'd happily pay a fee for Radio 4

How would that be enforced beyond "You might have a radio so we'll threaten you until you give us some money"?

Would you be happy to replace all your radios with new ones that accepted subscription cards?

The main problem with the licence fee is that a lot of people use BBC services without paying anything for them. Paying it from general taxation seems logical to me, spread that burden. I'm not as much a fan of the BBC as I once was but on balance it's still a good thing.

scotroutes - Member

If we really want some form of Public Service Broadcasting then it should be fully costed, fully funded and farmed out via competitive tender.

Why?

"[i]and so apart from a few grumpy old buggers who dont watch TV lest their minds are warped by lizardnews, and another couple of dozen with de-tuned TVs, a pile of DVDs and claim that they only watch stuff on iplayer,[/i]"

I resemble that remark!
Haven't paid it, or watched live TV for 5 years now.

BTW no one seems to have mentioned that the license the BBC holds and collects money for has nothing to do with content - that's covered separately in the BBC charter - its for the right to watch live TV content of any description from any provider on any equipment within the UK. This is why the 'but I only watch ITV/SKY/C4 etc' argument against paying doesn't work in law. Which, if you think about it is very antiquated. Hence also why many people living abroad get the benefits for free - the BBC has no similar remit in Holland for instance yet broadcasts there. Crazy.

How would that be enforced beyond "You might have a radio so we'll threaten you until you give us some money"?

Giant faraday cages dropped over any houses that don't have a license?

For me the regressive nature of the TV licence is the strongest argument against it. It's not surprising however that STW has a good lot of "I'd happily pay more" types given we tend to be a middle class lot and often have the disposable income to afford multiple expensive bikes. 🙂 Compared to the average price of the bikes showed off on this forum the licence fee is chump change. (I'm not excluding myself from that generalisation, BTW!)

On the other hand, one alternative funding mentioned in the BBC article was a compulsory levy applied to all households. While it solves the oddity of people who only access the BBC through things like iPlayer not needing to pay anything towards the cost of those services it hardly seems like a progressive step forward.

Funding the BBC through taxation sounds more promising but some problems with that idea have already been stated in this thread, e.g. more political pressure on the BBC as politicians have a tighter control on its income, and the risk of "hospital beds vs BBC funding" arguments being further used to attack it.

Personally, I'm not sure what the solution is. It may end up being the case that the licence fee is one of those typically British less than ideal bodges that end up sticking around because they are the least worst solution anyone's managed to think of. That's probably why it's survived this long already.