BBC and the TV licence fee.

[petercj]

Do you think there is any justification for carrying on with the BBC TV Licence fee?

Apart from the current mess-up over wrongly accusing people of being paedophiles which has cost around a £1000.000, the programs are generally pretty poor, and if you want a broad and rounded view of the latest News, then Sky News does much better than the BBC.

Nearly all of the programs that the BBC claim are popular are made by private companies and not the BBC - Master Chef, for example, is made by a company owned by Murdoch's daughter.

Since Greg Dyke was bounced out as DG because the BBC upset the Government of the day by telling the truth, BBC News has been far from independent and objective, and has become a mouth-piece for the Government of the day.

The TV Licence fee is basically a tax on the right to receive live broadcasts whether they are by commercial channels or otherwise. Is it time to give people a choice of paying the licence fee IF they want to watch BBC programs, but if not, be free to legally access commercial channels through Sky or other providers?

I don't mind commercial breaks when watching TV as they provide an opportunity to put the kettle on, or take a quick comfort break.

If adverts do annoy people, then SKY Plus allows you to skip them if following the program 5 minutes behind live time.

Had the Licence fee not been frozen over the last few years, it would no doubt be approaching £200 p.a., so are you so dedicated to the BBC and the way it is funded that you are happy to pay out that kind of money in future years?

 

[jtsplumbing]

Agree with what you say, program quality as got worse, I would be quite happy to have BBC disconnected from what i watch, pay enough to sky without paying for the rubbish that the BBC have started to put out.

 

[on31ll]

i agree totally i dont see the point really i dont really watch bbc. i dont even know how much the tv licence is at the moment off the top of my head but like above i pay £80 a month already for sky ! its stupid but without the licence fee then i guess there will be no freeview tv ?

 

[Tierney]

Match of the Day is worth the money lol!

 

[petercj]

The Government has now frozen the fee at £145.50 until the end of the current BBC Charter period in 2016.

Freeview has been a long time coming for many people, and as the future is broadband TV, probably on a pay-to-view basis, it's debatable whether such a long-term program was ever worth embarking on. Would have made more sense for the Government to have invested in getting BT exchanges up to spec so that they could have coped with BBTV some years ago, as France has done for example.

The BBC prepared for BBTV by developing iPlayer, and Murdoch got into providing Sky BB for his customers at low cost so that he'd have his customers set up for the rolling out of BBTV. Love him, or hate him, Murdoch is one smart cookie when it comes to business.

 

[zzzjim]

BBC English is something to be proud of all over the world , do we want to dismiss our colonial past .

Just re write history like the Americans !

Not everyone can afford Sky , nor does everyone want adverts every 20 mins !

 

[Howsie]

BBC News urinates all over they sky hyped up rubbish.

 

[SimonG]

BBC News, Match of the Day, Doctor Who and that's about it.

 

[mountainman]

I think that Sky is overpriced nonsense with the occasional gem.
BBC is much better value IMO.

 

[Millsy 82]

I think that Sky is overpriced nonsense with the occasional gem.
BBC is much better value IMO.

Sky is well overpriced for watching repeat after repeat. The only thing I liked about sky was the sports channels. I think the licence fee is worth it just for the radio channels I couldnt listen to commercial stations all day it would drive me bonkers and they play a good variety of music on radio 1 and 2

 

[petercj]

Sky is well overpriced for watching repeat after repeat. The only thing I liked about sky was the sports channels. I think the licence fee is worth it just for the radio channels I couldnt listen to commercial stations all day it would drive me bonkers and they play a good variety of music on radio 1 and 2

I do think BBC radio is a different kettle of fish from BBC TV.

The issue I posted on is BBC TV, and what justification there is for it being funded by a mandatory tax imposed on everyone, whether they want to watch it or not?

The BBC is often passionately defended by the older generation, but in my experience, youngsters are less keen to prop up something that is rapidly going down hill.

Modern technology, i.e. tablets, lap-tops, and other mobile viewing devices, and wi-fi, mean that conventional methods of transmission are fading fast. BBTV has been held up by BT dragging its feet and rolling out the technology slowly to maximise profits, but things are starting to change: BB speeds are increasing, and as mobile viewing devices become increasing popular, so more and more people are watching TV by way of BB, and advertising is switching to the Internet. The future is about pay-to-view, or watch with adverts over BB, all of which is self-funding. So why should everyone who wants to receive live (instantaneous broadcasts) that are self- funding have the current BBC tax imposed on them by law?

 

[erpkid]

Technically as long as you do not watch live you do not need a licence. The missus and I tend to use iplayer and its equivalents a lot. However if everyone did it we would be losing something unique in this increasingly homogeneous world. The best stuff on discovery etc is actually BBC stuff. I get annoyed at some one being able to promote themselves on BBC morning news ( singer, author etc ) but they preach as appropriate apparently :wink5:

 

[Ray Stafford]

Its a good point PeterCJ.

I probably would pay for the BBC, mostly for the radio which I listen to extensively, and sometimes for live sport. It is still my "go-to" choice for news if anything serious is happening in the world, and although I don't kid myself that it is impartial, at least I understand it's likely biases.

The point is that I should have the choice whether to pay for it. And for those who choose not to, they shouldn't be forced to.

The old licence fee model made sense back in the day when only the Beeb could realistically invest in a nationwide infrastructure, but that hasn't been the case for some time now.

My preference would be to split it in two, with key services like BBC weather and news being funded by taxes, but entertainment and sport having to make their own way commercially.

 

[julesverne]

whilst i find the tv a bit naff they do have some gems like documentaries and nature programs blue planets etc are out of this world.

the radio service is excellent i listen to the radio 1,2 & 5. and imho the news is far superior to sky which is far more biased to murdoch's personal views etc.

 

[hammers4spanner]

Cant believe you lot have got time to watch t.v !!!

Cant be busy enough you lot !!