Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

The Future of the TV Licence

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
The BBC and the government are discussing the future of the TV licence. It has already been agreed that the BBC will take on the cost of the licence for over 75s, but they are the only group who don’t have to pay the TV licence. Should university students also get free TV licences?

Do you think that young people receive value for money from the TV licence? The BBC is considering closing down BBC Three, the television channel aimed at young people. Look at this BBC Three schedule. Do you think BBC Three is needed, or are young people already well catered for by channels such as E4 and ITVB?

Comments

  • plugitinplugitin Posts: 2,197 Boards Champion
    A lot of uni students don't have to have a TV licence at the moment because they use on-demand services which aren't subject to needing a licence.

    I am in two minds about the TV Licence and whether it provides me value for money. On the one hand, I see it as just another bill I have to pay and I don't particularly mind - after all, it works out to be a fairly small amount across the year and BBC programming is generally good. My main problem with the BBC though is that because it is funded by the tax payer, it is subject seemingly to feeling like they cannot offend anyone and you hear that strings are being pulled to make sure that the "correct" news is being shown. I love the comedy and breakfast on the BBC, but quite honestly, Channel 4 are doing a cracking job right now and I would much prefer to watch a lot of their documentaries over those of the BBC. I don't see that we would ever get to a stage of paying absolutely nothing for TV - I'm sure that if we didn't pay the licence fee to the BBC, we would have to pay something for TV infrastructure instead.

    I think it's a crying shame to shut down BBC Three because it's a way for new talent to start out - for a lot of people the BBC is a key goal (not to mention the worldwide significance of the BBC). Worse than BBC Three though is the thing with the Met Office - I don't trust anyone else to do the weather. I do hope that they (another british institution) can put in a successful bid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't watch much TV though enjoy the Dave channel or Quest. The BBC are thankfully advertisement free and this goes to show they need money from licences. I have a telly licence just to keep myself on the right side of the law, but use Netflix.

    Students have other media services and as they don't pay income tax yet, it does seem very unfair to expect them to shell out when already they are finding it hard to meet while at college or uni.

    There are a great many millions of adults, mums and dads who pay the TV licence, and that allows their kids to enjoy TV in their homes whether there are 2 tellies or more. But I think students should pay if only a fraction of the annual amount to make it fair.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Students have other media services and as they don't pay income tax yet, it does seem very unfair to expect them to shell out when already they are finding it hard to meet while at college or uni.

    Students not paying tax is a myth. The only reason why generally they don't pay is because like other who don't pay, is because of their income. Your latter sentence also applies to a lot of people on low incomes too who aren't students.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Melian wrote: »

    Students not paying tax is a myth. The only reason why generally they don't pay is because like other who don't pay, is because of their income. Your latter sentence also applies to a lot of people on low incomes too who aren't students.

    Well, whatever and who cares a toss. It's just my point of view since the forum is debate & politics and nothing more. But I maintain TV licencies should be paid whatever income people are on, students or not. The BBC doesn't dish out Welfare - that's for politics. :\

    Ta ta! :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    plugitin wrote: »
    My main problem with the BBC though is that because it is funded by the tax payer, it is subject seemingly to feeling like they cannot offend anyone and you hear that strings are being pulled to make sure that the "correct" news is being shown.

    One argument for not privatising the BBC is that people with a lot of money would pull the strings, so the impartiality of the BBC's news coverage would be compromised. Do you still trust BBC News, or do you trust another broadcaster more?
    I love the comedy and breakfast on the BBC, but quite honestly, Channel 4 are doing a cracking job right now and I would much prefer to watch a lot of their documentaries over those of the BBC.

    What is it about documentaries on 4 that make them better than BBC documentaries? Is it to do with the presentation, or is it the things they choose to make documentaries about?
    I think it's a crying shame to shut down BBC Three because it's a way for new talent to start out - for a lot of people the BBC is a key goal (not to mention the worldwide significance of the BBC). Worse than BBC Three though is the thing with the Met Office - I don't trust anyone else to do the weather. I do hope that they (another british institution) can put in a successful bid.

    A lot of the programmes on BBC Three are commissioned, so private companies make them. Why do you find it easier to trust those programme makers than you do to trust the weather if it comes from a private company the BBC has commissioned? Do you think the BBC should be banned from commissioning programmes that have a responsibility to provide current information, and instead provide those programmes itself?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't watch much TV though enjoy the Dave channel or Quest. The BBC are thankfully advertisement free and this goes to show they need money from licences. I have a telly licence just to keep myself on the right side of the law, but use Netflix.

    Why don't you watch more BBC programmes? What could they do to make you watch more?

    Does the lack of adverts improve the quality of programmes?
    Melian wrote: »

    Students not paying tax is a myth. The only reason why generally they don't pay is because like other who don't pay, is because of their income. Your latter sentence also applies to a lot of people on low incomes too who aren't students.

    Do you think poorer people should pay less towards the BBC than rich people?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    WayneS wrote: »

    Why don't you watch more BBC programmes? What could they do to make you watch more?

    Does the lack of adverts improve the quality of programmes?


    Do you think poorer people should pay less towards the BBC than rich people?


    Hello! Nice of you to ask me these things and in such a civil manner. :)

    First of all and importantly, I think the BBC is a first rate television service and cannot fault it, only the reason I don't watch TV per se is because I have other interests. Such as I now have a lively young family that occupies much of my leisure time; and that I am a licenced radio ham, my interest in watching telly somewhat wanes untl round about 8 pm. I prefer listening to the radio; such as Radio 2 and the lovely Radio 4 and at night, the outstanding BBC World Service. If I were to watch the BBC, then it would be BBC2 - but that is just preference. The lack of advertising on the BBC I don't think has affected the quality of its broadcasting. There again, I don't watch soaps and in the past certainly not Neighbours. That godawful soap coming from Australia such as was being televised all those years ago was simply ghastly - heh, who needs neighbours? :p But I digress. I am pleased with the high quality programmes the BBC televise.

    Incidentally, Quest who are currently televising Salvage Hunters featuring that piggy-eyed, shortarsed, cockly little cloth-capped dealer Drew Pritchard have been handing out repeats of repeats of repeats, and yet depend upon advertising to pay its way and still we are getting repeats going back several years and I'm getting very pissed off with them. Don't you feel as a watcher, feel a little bit cheated having to watch other progs being repeated all of the time? I realise the BBC are similarly guilty of this, but are nowhere as notorious as Quest, or the Dave channel.



    My next door neighbours are poor, and are pensioners. Not aged 80 yet whereupon the won't have to pay for a TV licence, they still manage to buy their annual licence and what I like about them so much is they don't whine their lot. Which should answer your question as to whether poorer people should pay less, my answer in this context is firmly No.

    Today I bought a Lottery ticket. The people in front were spending thirty quid at least on Lottery tickets and told me they pay at least twenty quid a week and been doing so for years. So if they can shell out that amount of money - which must amount to heck of a lot every month - why not a television licence? I suppose it all boils down to personal preference, really. And, we all have values and they can vary widely.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally, everything is I watch is online these days. I only occasionally watch OnDemand stuff, but the amount of ads (and sometimes the quality of service *cough 4OD), is ridiculous to downright unusable so I go to torrent/streaming elsewhere generally. I haven't watched the actual TV in over a year. Ads annoy me and it's mostly repeats. My dad covers the cost of the TV licence because he's the one who watches it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In response to the points above about repeats, I personally don't watch them, but looking through TV listings, it is hard to argue there are not too many. The digital era has seen an increase in the amount of television channels. Would it be better if there were fewer channels, and restrictions on how many and often repeats could be shown? Would this lead to better programming in the commercial sector, and how would such changes affect the BBC?
    Today I bought a Lottery ticket. The people in front were spending thirty quid at least on Lottery tickets and told me they pay at least twenty quid a week and been doing so for years. So if they can shell out that amount of money - which must amount to heck of a lot every month - why not a television licence? I suppose it all boils down to personal preference, really. And, we all have values and they can vary widely.

    It could be just that they perceive there is more of a chance of them getting something in return. The licence comes back to them, but in the form of television programmes rather than money. Of course, the BBC is the broadcaster of the National Lottery draws.

    But that is a good point, because they spend considerably less on the licence fee.
Sign In or Register to comment.