Time to scrap the TV licence?

[MrMondo]

No I wouldn't

 

If you've ever been the the US, it shows how dire commercial TV can be. Even over here (with ads limited to 12 min per hour) ITV and Five are pretty dire. The licence fee is only about 30p per day, per household which I think is pretty good value for money.

 

I think the TV licence would be worth while if it covered more channels. The fact that it is just for the BBC makes me think whether it is worth it.

 

Shouldn't we at least have the choice to opt out?? It would be possible to do this with digital TV. You could pay extra for a BBC package.

[Digsy]

If I want to watch the Tv I put it on.

 

Some channels are scrambled and I must pay if I WANT to watch them.

 

The BBC channels are not scrambled, but I MUST pay to watch them, even if I do not want to.

 

They should scramble their channels, then anybody paying for the TV license should be allowed to watch their channels.

 

It's a regressive tax that I do not want to pay.

 

So basically your saying that the t.v. license is extortion.

I agree.

Isn't extortion illegal?

[MrMondo]

its not going to happen, stop wasting your time wishing this and that and go and be useful

 

Why do some people have to be total idiots????

 

I only asked a question!

 

I'm not wasting my time. You should stop making assumptions & go and something useful with your time instead of posting pointless comments on forums!

[MrMondo]

I agree and I don't watch TV. The BBC is an institution that we must keep. Advertising is taking over the world.

 

But the BBC pay their "stars" 7 figure salaries from our money, but (in my opinion) they don't back these vast wages up with quality programmes.

[xfox3x]

I'd love to see the results of a survey which shows people's viewing habits against their view of the licence fee - under the condition that participants weren't aware that this was the aim of the survey (it's easy to say you don't use and BBC services if you think that it's a licence fee survey).

 

I would place good money on there being no correlation between people don't want to pay the licence fee and people who don't consume any of the BBC output. Equally, I think there would be a very good correlation between people who don't want to pay the licence fee, and people who think programming paid for by adverts don't cost them anything.

 

If people are asked what programmes they watch, then obviously they are going to name BBC programmes as they are paying for it!

I like to watch 'My Family', but I could do without it if the option was there to not pay the fee and only watch the commercial channels.

[sccsux]

Don't forget the TV licence pays for all radio and online services too.

 

Radio's crap, the online services are (mostly) available throughout the world, for free.

[Fogey]

The T.V. License should be reduced, stars should be paid less and the money should not be used for on line services unless they can be accessed without paying for the internet.

[dosxuk]

The T.V. License should be reduced, stars should be paid less

 

And then the programmes broadcast by the BBC will be worth less, meaning they're not as good value for money as currently. Audiences dictate how much celebrities get paid - if more people watch them, they can justify a higher fee. It's certainly not unusual for the BBC to refuse to get into a bidding war with other channels, and will let talent they've built up go off to ITV/Sky because they can't justify the fee the agent wants.

 

and the money should not be used for on line services unless they can be accessed without paying for the internet.

 

You can use them for free in public libraries and numerous other places. It's not like you can watch their television channels without buying a TV, or listen to their radio stations without buying a radio.

[chem1st]

And then the programmes broadcast by the BBC will be worth less, meaning they're not as good value for money as currently. Audiences dictate how much celebrities get paid - if more people watch them, they can justify a higher fee. It's certainly not unusual for the BBC to refuse to get into a bidding war with other channels, and will let talent they've built up go off to ITV/Sky because they can't justify the fee the agent wants.

 

 

 

You can use them for free in public libraries and numerous other places. It's not like you can watch their television channels without buying a TV, or listen to their radio stations without buying a radio.

 

If we were not blackmailed into paying the license fee, the bbc would not be able to pay high fees, other channels would not pay high fees as they would not have to compete with the bbc's ability to pay high fees. Advertisements would not be needed as much as they are now as a source of revenue which is subsequently used to pay those fees.

[dosxuk]

If we were not blackmailed into paying the license fee, the bbc would not be able to pay high fees, other channels would not pay high fees as they would not have to compete with the bbc's ability to pay high fees. Advertisements would not be needed as much as they are now as a source of revenue which is subsequently used to pay those fees.

 

The "talent" fee is a minute part of the costs of producing a programme for broadcast on any of the main channels. An episode of the X Factor (which has basically zero talent costs) is in the region of a million pounds. By not paying the judges anything, you might reduce that to being in the region of a million pounds.

 

If the neither the BBC or any other UK broadcasters were paying high fees, then we would see a lot more of our talent moving to the states, and have even less original British programming.

 

I agree that some fees are too high, and maybe the BBC shouldn't have invested in as many "golden handcuff" deals, but it's a problem which affects virtually every industry in this country these days. I'd say most of the presenters are more worthy of their £100,000/year salaries than the £100,000/week footballers.