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.
Options
£139.50 for the BBC
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 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
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
0
Comments
- 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.
C-A x
The TV licence forces the consumption of a product if a person wants to consume a rival product.
Poll: BBC enjoys overwhelming support from British public, up from 5 years ago
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!
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.
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.
So suggests the most ultrafundamentalist right wing, hate-filled blogger (Guido, not you SG) on the internet. So it must be true.
C-A x
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.
C-A x
What's wrong with sending people who evade paying taxes to prison? It's a criminal offence like any other
I know about the marines pay without reading that site anyway :P
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.
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.
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.
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.