If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
TV Licence- Is it still justified?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
As my annual bill for the licence arrived the other day, I started wondering if it is still justified for the BBC to be financed in such way.
IMHO the BBC is best state television & radio broadcaster in the world. They have come up with consistent good quality programming and sober productions for many years now. This could not have been achieved without the massive cash injection the corporation receives through the licensing each year. The money also removes the need for broadcasting advertisements either on the TV or radio channels, which is a blessing that cannot be overstated.
However there have been voices from all sides of the political spectrum saying the BBC has been dumbing down its programming and becoming commercially-minded to the point where the justification for a licence fee is no longer valid. There is also the issue of the less well-off who can't afford to pay. In a few disgraceful cases OAP's have been even jailed for not paying the licence.
After consideration I believe I still prefer to pay for a licence so the BBC can maintain its unique position. However I would not want it to go down the ITV way any further- on a Saturday evening it is difficult to tell which channel is which.
I wonder what other UK posters make of it, and indeed what the non-UK posters think about having to pay an annual licence for watching television.
IMHO the BBC is best state television & radio broadcaster in the world. They have come up with consistent good quality programming and sober productions for many years now. This could not have been achieved without the massive cash injection the corporation receives through the licensing each year. The money also removes the need for broadcasting advertisements either on the TV or radio channels, which is a blessing that cannot be overstated.
However there have been voices from all sides of the political spectrum saying the BBC has been dumbing down its programming and becoming commercially-minded to the point where the justification for a licence fee is no longer valid. There is also the issue of the less well-off who can't afford to pay. In a few disgraceful cases OAP's have been even jailed for not paying the licence.
After consideration I believe I still prefer to pay for a licence so the BBC can maintain its unique position. However I would not want it to go down the ITV way any further- on a Saturday evening it is difficult to tell which channel is which.
I wonder what other UK posters make of it, and indeed what the non-UK posters think about having to pay an annual licence for watching television.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
i do use the BBC, and i pay full whack for using it, but id rather have the option to not pay and not get the bbc channels. id rather stick to ones that are free. what other bbc services are you talking about?
What's it like to have such a narrow view of the world?
Commercial television already exists (just in case you haven't noticed) and it looks firstly at the ratings, because that is how it generates its income. Thus we end up with popular, yet completely shite TV. The biggest ratings come from soaps, do you really want to see more of them?
What the BBC should be doing, but have failed to do, is make quality programmes. Its something which they used to excell in, until they also decided that ratings were important.
Except it wasn't the BBC who decided that, it was people like you who said that they couldn't justify their fee, if they didn't get the huge audiences. Thus we end up with programmes like Celebrity Sleepover...and more soaps than a Dove Factory.
Happy now?
PS Commercial TV means that it is politically controlled too. The BBC is much more independant on this score. Which, funnily enough, is why it is so well respected around the world. And another reason why people like you struggle to accept it.
ALL TV stations in Britain are (by law) meant to be impartial in their coverage of political occurances. In that sense, no commercial station is 'politically biased', as you claim to state.
Nope, wrong again.
They are only required to avoid bias once an election is called. The rest of the time they can be a partial as they like.
News.bbc.co.uk, and other such BBC websites, BBC education programmes and services, BBC radio stations...
OK:rolleyes:
If i dont pay my licence fee, i get fined thousands of pounds -whether i write to Greg Dykes or not. we dont need a licence for the radio stations so that doesnt count. I do watch eastenders and a few other BBC channels but all i want is for them to be subscription channels rather than compulsory. theres lots of channels i would like to get but i only get the free ones because i am on a very tight budget, same as a lot of people. If i could opt out of getting the BBC channels and not paying a licence fee then I would do. Whether you think its worth it because they are `quality programs` is just your opinion. For me its not worth it at all, its a waste of money, id rather have the odd commercial break and it be free.
Okay, first thing. The radio stations. If folk didn't have tv licences then the BBC radio stations wouldn't exist. You can't just say they don't count. The licence fee provides them.
Second thing, make up your mind. Subscription channels or advert funded? Or both? Personally I'm glad for a channel where we don't have to sit through 20 minutes of commercials for 40 minutes of programme. That in itself is worth the fee for me. The shameless self-promotion and continual advert bombardment from the likes of Sky makes many things practically unwatchable, and severly limits the effectiveness of the programmes.
True, but if the TV stations become subscription only, this would have to change. Remember that the TV licence covers this service too.
30p per day, per household really isn't too much, is it?
either subsciption only or advert funded, I dont mind, I just think we should have the option to not watch the BBC (and not listen to bbc radio either) and not have to pay the licence fee if we want to opt out.
Am i the only one that doesnt mind the odd commercial break then? I use the break during films etc to make coffee, go to the loo etc.
I dont hate the BBC but why should we all be FORCED to pay for a service that we are not definitely going to use. Im not disputing that some people think it is worth it - but it should be an individual choice if you want those channels without adverts and with the `quality programs` you obviously enjoy, then you can pay a licence fee to watch them. but what is wrong with being able to say `no i cant afford £100 or whatever it is a year` Ill go without those 2 channels. Theres nothing THAT great on the BBC channels that warrants it to cost so much more.
Commercial radio/TV is funded by adverts. These adverts are funded by the goods we buy, often because we have to. If you need these goods, you HAVE to contribute towards the advertising of these goods, and therefore you HAVE to fund commercial media. We have no choice of whether this money goes to ITV, Channel 4 or the numerous Sky channels and we have no control over when these adverts are placed or what influence the advertisers money buys. Yet we do not complain about the fact that this money is used to fund TV/Radio.
The BBC on the other hand costs each household 30p per day. For that everyone gets two TV channels, and five radio stations. Otehrs with digital access get several addition TV and radio stations. Those with internet access get BBC online.
Again, is that really too much to ask?
However, as someone who works within I can certainly confirn a helluvalot of money is quite simply wasted!
Given the choice though I too would rather have quality BBC programming funded by a licence than the crap they show on commercial channels.
Doesn't matter what it pays for. If you don't watch TV at all, you don't have to pay for a TV licence. So anyone who argues on that point doesn't have to own a TV and doesn't have to pay the licence, so there should be no problem. Anyone who does watch TV can't argue on that score, and has to pay for the licence.
It comes down to whether you think TV is a fundamental right, which of course it isn't. You have to pay for water. You have to pay for gas and electricity. Is it really that bad that you have to pay for TV? Everything needs paying for, nothing in this world is free.
If getting rid of the licence meant the BBC folding or turning commercial, then I'd rather keep the licence. Is it really that bad?
You've already admitted that you do use it, so this is something of a moot point. If you honestly don't ever use if then there is some merit to saying that you shouldn't be forced, but how could this ever be applied across the whole population? Do you expect people to admit to watching the channels when there is no legal requirement to? Oh no, they'd just not pay and carry on watching.
what im saying is id rather have the option not to have access to them, sorry if i didnt make myself clear. I have NTL digital and most of the channels i do not get as i would have to pay for them, its not a case of saying `honest im not watching those ones`, If you dont pay, then you cant access the channels, why cant it be the same with the BBC channels?
The BBC channels are broadcast terrestrially as well as on cable. Whilst you can limit through scrambling the channels available in the digital medium this isn't something that could easiely be applied to the other channels. Fair enough once everyone has moved over to digital then you might be able to apply such control. (Though I'd still be against it.)
I'm not against people having a choice as such, I'd just rather that there is one set of channels at least that are provided without subscription and advertising.
The BBC should become a subscription service, and the radio stations should become more commercial. I resent having to pay the inflated wages of the "stars" such as Gabby Roslin, Phillip Schofield and any of the dumb fucks off EastEnders. The BBC is being commercial on the back of public funds, and that is quite quite wrong. The BBC, as a public corporation, should NOT be spending millions getting into ratings wars with ITV- on no other country on earth does the public-funding station take such a populist stance.
The trouble is that the BBC thinks that it is better than everyone, when all it produces, especially on BBC1, is mindless droll tripe. I cant remember the last time there was 2 successive programmes on BBC1 worth watching. And dont even start me on Radio One, which doesnt listen to what people want but just plays shitty R&B. Its ratings are proof of that.
Basically I would have no qualm with the BBC and the licence fee if the BBC cut back on what it did, had say one or two TV stations and a couple of radio stations, and did not fritter away public money on mindless shit. As someone else said, its offensive that they pay the National Lottery so much money, as the Lottery is a public company and the BBC is paying to advertise its services. The BBC should deal with programmes of current affiars nature and 'community' programmes and leave the commercial shit to commercial television. And also stop advertising so much, and paying wages that are exorbitant.
Its never gonna happen though. The BBC is so up itself it cant see the mistakes it makes- thats how come Radio One has managed to lose 50% of its audience in 10 years and the best radio and TV stations in the UK are independent.