Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

£139.50 for the BBC

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
The TV license is now £139.50 per year - we're forced to pay it or go to jail - is it worth it? And if not what should be done?

I think it's a lot of money to pay for so few channels

- I think it's time to set a cut off date for the BBC to restructure itself - like a 10 year plan before the TV license fee is dropped.

I don't think I'd mind paying a much smaller fee for a dedicated BBC News Channel that was independent and unbiased but that's about all I want from the BBC these days
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    - It's not fair.
    - It is worth the money.
    - I don't think anything that could survive commercially should be funded out of public money.
    - I don't think a public service broadcaster should be spending any money buying programmes from America.
    - I don't buy the argument that quality is in any way related to the licence fee.

    You mention the few channels, but in terms of hours of original material, I wonder how it compares to all these multi-channel packages?

    But anyway, I'd scrap the licence fee, but I'm not against the public funding of stuff that would struggle to exist otherwise but provides a valuable service (educational programmes, kids TV, news, anything that gives opportunities to new talent, etc), and so would set up a fund for that, where commercial companies are subsidized to make such programmes. That way, you'd avoid a monopoly, and such programmes would only need the level of public funding that would make them commercially viable, rather than full public funding for everything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd gladly pay £10 per year to keep the BBC news available, both online and on News 24. The rest of it... IMO, isn't worth the fee. Thought it is better than the advertising-funded channels, for the most part...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The BBC could easily be cut back to BBC1 and 2, plus BBC News and parliament, and radio 1-5, getting rid of its other local radio stations and channels - its not that the BBC has too few channels, but that it has too many.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No-one forces you to watch the TV though - so how does that mean we're forced to pay it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    £142.50 ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ... there's always BBC iplayer.
    C-A x
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »
    No-one forces you to watch the TV though - so how does that mean we're forced to pay it?

    The TV licence forces the consumption of a product if a person wants to consume a rival product.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Funny you should bring this up today....

    Poll: BBC enjoys overwhelming support from British public, up from 5 years ago
    An overwhelming majority, 77%, think the BBC is an institution people should be proud of – up from 68% in an equivalent ICM poll carried out five years ago. Most, 63%, also think it provides good value for money – up from 59% in 2004

    :):):D:D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh, and by the way: fuck the Murdochs and fuck Sky.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Has anyone got a link to the historical rise amounts of the licence fee, so I can have a look at how much it has been over the past say 20 years?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ah... the joys of not owning a TV :-)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmmm I kind of miss the BBC (I live abroad) but I still think the licence is too expensive. I never had a licence when I lived in England, couldn't afford it. We have BBC Prime here, but it's rubbish and just shows constant Antiques Roadshow.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not going to pay for it, just going to get a DVB reciever for my PC and another monitor (which imo is much cheap that a TV it's self). Therefore i don't have to pay for the £140 bbc.

    DO you remember when they tried charging you £140 per tv in your house?

    whaat? your 15....yet your acting like your 30 and you pay all the bills in your house.....unless you've moved into that house that your mum had given you?

    im confused by your post, yet again! :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not going to pay for it, just going to get a DVB reciever for my PC and another monitor (which imo is much cheap that a TV it's self). Therefore i don't have to pay for the £140 bbc.

    DO you remember when they tried charging you £140 per tv in your house?

    You do realise the licence fee is not just for TV's, it is for devices capable of receiving a terrestrial TV signal, so your DVB receiver would in theory need one too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    Has anyone got a link to the historical rise amounts of the licence fee, so I can have a look at how much it has been over the past say 20 years?
    Here's a chart on Wikipedia showing you how it has increased over the years.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes it is true, the licence fee is for devices capable of receiving the signal.

    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/conditions.jsp#link2


    Not meant in a nasty way JordanScene, but you are so naive sometimes, taking what your friends say about such things as science, or royal marine pay etc at face value.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh I see... if we don't agree with the results the poll cannot be accurate.

    So suggests the most ultrafundamentalist right wing, hate-filled blogger (Guido, not you SG) on the internet. So it must be true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What happened to a good old family board game?
    C-A x
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    So suggests the most ultrafundamentalist right wing, hate-filled blogger (Guido, not you SG) on the internet. So it must be true.
    To borrow a popular word from Guido's commentators, you are a "hoon". :p There are far more offensive bloggers than Guido Fawkes out there - much, much worse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm 15, i've hardly found everything out yet :blush:
    MrG has clearly been spending too much time reading the ARRSE forums of late. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Oh I see... if we don't agree with the results the poll cannot be accurate.


    I thought you held the general public in contempt?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The BBC could easily be cut back to BBC1 and 2, plus BBC News and parliament, and radio 1-5, getting rid of its other local radio stations and channels - its not that the BBC has too few channels, but that it has too many.

    Wrong way round IMHO.

    The BBC's commercial concerns- BBC1, BBC2, CBBC, Radio 1, 2 and 5Live- should be forced to survive commercially. That could mean advertisements or it could be on a subscription basis. If the British public think the telly is worth it, they'll pay the subscription fees, and the BBC could probably charge more than they do at present.

    The BBC in it's public-funding guise should be there to protect programming that wouldn't otherwise be made- education, religion and community affairs, current affairs and local broadcasting.

    Personally I think the TV Tax- call it what it is- is good value for the amount of broadcasting it supports, but that that really isn't the point. If you think it's acceptable to send someone to prison to ensure that Celebrity Cunt Fever or Doctor Who Cares? is made, then you're a clot.

    Because make no mistake, the BBC does send people to prison for failing to pay for How do you solve a problem like Andrew Lloyd Webber?. The fact that it has contracted Crapita to do it's dirty work doesn't mean it's not responsible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm glad I don't have to worry about bills... this is mad...
    C-A x
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Personally I think the TV Tax- call it what it is- is good value for the amount of broadcasting it supports, but that that really isn't the point. If you think it's acceptable to send someone to prison to ensure that Celebrity Cunt Fever or Doctor Who Cares? is made, then you're a clot.

    Because make no mistake, the BBC does send people to prison for failing to pay for How do you solve a problem like Andrew Lloyd Webber?. The fact that it has contracted Crapita to do it's dirty work doesn't mean it's not responsible.

    What's wrong with sending people who evade paying taxes to prison? It's a criminal offence like any other :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Imagine the Politics & Debate section of the site, was actually all that was here, thats pretty much ARRSE all over. Hence Im hardly ever on.

    I know about the marines pay without reading that site anyway :P
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    What's wrong with sending people who evade paying taxes to prison? It's a criminal offence like any other :confused:

    At least you have the balls to think that Strictly Come Dancing is worth sending someone to prison.

    I think there's everything wrong with the BBC sending someone to prison for watching ITV. You'd be foaming at the mouth if Sky suddenly got the power to do it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do I personally mind it? No, not really. It's a fair wedge but spread across the year it hardly breaks the bank and does pay for a lot of good content (and some crap content.)

    Is it fair? Not really no.

    One issue, though, is that it's not particularly easy for the BBC to be able to change to, say, a subscription model, because current broadcasting technologies would mean that doing so would massively limit the audience (subscriber channels need a viewing card). So without massive investment in putting infrastructure into people's homes (something that would be ridiculous right now considering the digital programme is underway and has taken years) they aren't left with many options. It's adverts or nothing, really.

    You don't have to look far to see how much advertising revenue has fallen recently, and how the end result of switching to such a model would probably be a massive government bailout. And who pays for that? Us.

    So all in all, the Devil which we know is probably best, just now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Most modern TVs come with a viewing card socket; mine certainly does, and it was a cheap Korean one from Tesco.

    The technology's there, it's whether the will is there. And from the BBC it's not there, because they know just how cushy they have it. All the benefits of having a public income without any of the drawbacks- accountability, for instance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    At least you have the balls to think that Strictly Come Dancing is worth sending someone to prison.

    I think there's everything wrong with the BBC sending someone to prison for watching ITV. You'd be foaming at the mouth if Sky suddenly got the power to do it.
    Hold on a second. You can't have it both ways. If the licence fee really is a TV 'tax' as you claim, then it should be treated like any other tax should it not?

    Never mind about the issue that it is the British Justice system, and the judge presiding the court case, who send anyone to prison, not the BBC.

    I'd be interested to know the figures of how many people do end up in prison, incidentally. I suspect the great majority do not. Indeed, some twat journalist (could be AN Wilson or Simon Jenkins, can't remember) publicly said a while ago he'd stopped paying the licence in protest at Jonathan Ross. Unfortunately for us all he remains free as a bird.
Sign In or Register to comment.