Time to scrap the TV licence?

[Paul2412]

I'll agree with you here, £145 isn't good value to watch Dragons Den. I'd be surprised that you can't find anything else worth watching, or listening to on the radio because of the range of programming but that's slightly beside the point.

 

The BBC has certain obligations (called it's charter) to fulfil in return for receiving a licence fee. It has to provide a certain % of news programming, it has to give advice in the event of a disaster and it has to provide a certain amount of educational content. There are plenty of other things it has to do that I can't remember off the top of my head.

 

I guess in a way it's a kind of public service, and like any public service you have to pay for it. I don't claim benefits, use public library's or live in a council house but I don't resent paying what's fair so others can do so.

 

That is a fair point, and there are far more important things to be worrying about.

 

TV wise I generally watch it for the sport on Sky. News wise I'll watch Sky News and I sometimes watch the documentaries on C4 and the Discovery channels.

 

I pay £60 a month to watch what I want, so another £145 each year for what I don't watch seems a tad unfair and I doubt any other company would get away with it.

 

For example, say I launched a website and rather than using advertising I decided that everyone who has access to the internet has to pay me £50 a year. I could well imagine the reaction...

[dell12]

That is a fair point, and there are far more important things to be worrying about.

 

TV wise I generally watch it for the sport on Sky. News wise I'll watch Sky News and I sometimes watch the documentaries on C4 and the Discovery channels.

 

I pay £60 a month to watch what I want, so another £145 each year for what I don't watch seems a tad unfair and I doubt any other company would get away with it.

 

For example, say I launched a website and rather than using advertising I decided that everyone who has access to the internet has to pay me £50 a year. I could well imagine the reaction...

 

I do take your point, there will be some people who don't watch the BBC much and probably pay too much, and there will be others who watch lots of programmes and probably don't pay enough. Overall I suppose it balances itself out. I've found the charter and it is as follows:

 

(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;

(b)promoting education and learning;

©stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;

(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;

(e)bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;

(f)in promoting its other purposes, helping to deliver to the public the benefit ofemerging communications technologies and services and, in addition, taking aleading role in the switchover to digital television.

 

Of course some of these points are pretty vague, but there isn't another broadcaster in the UK who can say they do that, so perhaps your analogy of setting up a website slightly misses the point. It's not as if they get the licence fee handed over no questions asked.

 

It's the job of the BBC Trust (who are independent of the BBC) to ensure that the BBC do meet all their obligations. I guess it depends on whether you want an organisation to fulfil the terms of the charter. Without the licence fee though, there would be no commercial broadcaster who would (fulfil these terms) as it simply isn't economically viable.

[quisquose]

OK so in your opinion it is worth the money. The only thing I watch on BBC is Dragons Den. Personally, I don't feel that paying £145 per year to watch one series is particularly good value.

 

Similarly, I don't think that paying £120 per year for ESPN was good value.

 

At least I had a choice to remove ESPN, I can't with the BBC.

 

Poor value for just Dragons Den I agree, but how about sports programmes like snooker or the British Open golf, or dramas like The Street, or documentaries like The Trouble With Girls or Panorama?

 

[Paul2412]

Poor value for just Dragons Den I agree, but how about sports programmes like snooker or the British Open golf, or dramas like The Street, or documentaries like The Trouble With Girls or Panorama?

 

 

Ha! Well, I guess there are always exceptions... I might have watched the Snooker on Eurosport

[quisquose]

Ha! Well, I guess there are always exceptions... I might have watched the Snooker on Eurosport

Nah ... I bet you even pressed the red button.

 

[galanthusgal]

Have you noticed that a lot of American programmes on the BBC are only 45 minutes long (Star Trek for example). That's because they have removed all the adverts and they still have time for trailers! Whereas on commercial channels they are up to 1 hr long (with FIVE minutes for each set of adverts).

 

As a formula 1 fan I'm grateful that it is on Terrestrial television & not Sky.

 

Should the BBC bid for rights to show sports events? Personally, I think so, even though it is often a hefty price & I don't watch most sports.

 

Perhaps the BBC should have a referendum on what we want for our money: more soaps? More drama - which would include The Deep!? More sport? More chat shows? (Bring back Wossy?!).

[DeathAxe]

The BBC is an old dinosaur that is stuck in the 1960's. Technology is available now to scramble the stations, and after the analogue cut off is complete there will no longer be an excuse. The majourity of people in the UK do not want to pay this BBC tax. It needs to be abolished completly.

 

They need a new business model that does not rely on extortion, either advertising or subscription based sevices. This would then allow people who actually watch the BBC channels to fund it, where as folk like me that does not watch or use their other services can save the money for good entertainment.

 

subscription based services is probably the way to go due to folk not liking advertising. And perhaps an ondemand service for those one or 2 shows that the BBC produce that are decent (very few and far between).

[*Ryan*]

Are you people mad?! Pay to watch your own TV?! I would be happy if they took BBC of my TV so I could save myself a bit of money, In other countries such as Australia you don’t have to pay extra for your TV, fair play you do have more commercials but at least you don’t have to pay 'extra' for your TV. Just another thing this country seems to rob you of.

[galanthusgal]

Perhaps we should only pay a reduced fee (£50?) for the necessary stuff as required by charter, such as infrastructure, news, etc. and everything else should be paid through adverts?

[DeathAxe]

No gal, there should not be a fee at all. I do not watch the BBC or any broadcast TV at all. Why should I pay for that? My flatscreen is used connected to my media pc, and to my games console; no ariel plugged in to recieve TV. but yet I am forced to pay a subscription fee.

 

What makes it worse is that; for all these TV shows that you and me have paid out for already, I would have to pay more to watch them on repeat channels on sky (watch for example). Why is this allowed? where is my return on the money the BBC have made selling their shows to other channels?

 

They also make money from over priced DVDs of their shows. Again I have paid for these already, how the hell do they get away with that?

 

The time to scrap the licence is WAY over due. At the moment they are having their cake and eating it, and they still want more money. Robbing sods.