The TV Licence Fee

[JEM]

I consider this to be THE biggest con put upon the British viewing public. Soaps, gardening, antiques and reality TV programmes dominate the schedules, mixed in with the repeats.

The BBC have the best of both worlds. Not only do they rake in VAST quantities of cash from us, their UK stations on cable and satellite (about 10 of them) show repeats AS their schedule, and collect money from advertisers as well.

So the BBC get money from adverts AND from our licence fees. And they are backed by the law. Cushy, eh?

So what do they spend all this money on? Search me.

Is there anyone in this country who actually thinks that the BBC TV and radio service is good value for money?

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Its hardly a lot when you think how much TV you watch and what it works out as a day.
That said I have been working on the security for the next Tory party conference during the summer, and can tell you exactly where the money goes.... The BBC Gravey Train. I must have looked at dozens to hundreds of BBC employees with stupid jobs.

 

[Fran Hagarty]

Too much American rubbish and old films!

 

[Curious Orange]

The licence fee is well worth not having adverts on the BBC!!!

I get Freeview so I don't have to stump up loads of cash to get more than four channels too. Can't complain, as terrestrial telly gives me all the sport I actually want to see.

 

[JEM]

Its hardly a lot when you think how much TV you watch and what it works out as a day.

That's just it though. The programmes I watch on BBC are minimal. The occasional footy match (which are often simultaneously being broadcast on Sky) and The Simpsons (repeats, plus i've seen them all before). And that is it. honest.
And I know lots of people who are the same in their viewing.
It's a rip. Let them advertise.

 

[Goring Gull]

I don't think it's much to pay, Look at what you end up paying for Cable or Satelite instead of 4/5 channels you get another 90 odd and 90% of the time there is still fcuk all on.

 

[JEM]

Yes, but it's my choice if I want to or don't want to subscribe to cable.

Even if you only watch DVD's or videos the fact you have a TV means you have to bend over and take it up the arse by the BBC.

 

[Goring Gull]

Unless you bay a huge flat screen PC monitor and watch them on that.

 

[Shizuoka Dolphin]

That's the clever part though, you're not paying to watch the BBC, you're paying for the right to own a TV. It just turns out that most the money goes off to the BBC. Shitty if you ask me, but what can you do?

 

[JEM]

Nothing. That's why it's a con.

 

[Lush]

I hardly watch TV these days (about 5 hours a week?) and even then it's most likely to be comedy on Channel 4.

This is a definite trend with more channels available, more people having cable/satellite and more people deciding to idle away their hours on the internet instead.

However it's probably worth £2 a week to keep my CBBC-addicted kids entertained.

 

[Beach Hut]

I don't have an issue with this.

The quality of BBC is second to none.

 

[Shizuoka Dolphin]

Unless you bay a huge flat screen PC monitor and watch them on that.

I think even that requires a licence. They word it in such vague terms; something about 'video broadcasting and viewing equipment' to badly paraphrase them, meaning if you watch any kind of moving pictures you have to stump up.

Now that's the bit which causes such resentment, because we all know full well that the technology exists for such a system whereby people viewing only commercially supported TV networks would avoid the licence fee, but it's never going happen because, rightly or wrongly, the BBC would go out of business overnight.

 

[Lush]

OK, here's a question.

Why, when the BBC decide to do one of their blockbuster adverts - "Perfect Day" eg - does everyone from David Bowie to Bono drop everything and rush on over

Is it that they appreciate the institution that is the BBC- or do they get paid such an enormous fee they can't resist?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Just compare the best output from the BBC with the best of the rest.

Who is willing to take the risks?

The BBC or the commercial stations who are in hock to their advertisers?

£2 a week for the most innovative broadcasting channel in the world is excellent value.

Having said that, the dumming down of the BBC is deplorable. But how much worse would it be if ALL their income depended upon programme ratings and advertising revenue?

 

[JEM]

£2 a week for the most innovative broadcasting channel in the world is excellent value.

It was innovative once upon a time, with shows like Monty Python, Doctor Who, The Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy et al.
But now? Soaps are not innovative. Neither is gardening programmes. Or old and re-hashed films. Or imported American comedy.

Their own take on modern comedy is pathetic and weak (Eyes Down, Two Pints Of Lager, The Thin Blue Line to name a few) and stale, tired and predictable.

Granted, commercial stations are no better. But the thing that fries me is that we have no option as regards the licence fee. And it goes up virtually every year! Do you think any other country would put up with the daylight robbery this is?

I wonder how much money the BBC would make if it were subscription TV in the vein of Sky? Not a lot, methinks.

 

[Gwylan]

Compare the cost of the BBC with the cost of satellite subscription - is £2 a week really too high. If Sky reduced its prices to £1.50 a week, then there might be a decent argument.

I welcome the licence fee. It means that the BBC is not tied to any commercial concerns and can be independent. Look at the way that it has reported the Hutton inquiry: it hasn't been frightened to criticise itself and draw attention to its lapses. Can you really imagine a Murdoch-owned channel (or newspaper come to that) reporting any criticism of the Dirty Digger? Hell would freeze over first.

Interestingly, the BBC is treated with far more respect in other countries. The World Service and the BBC website are treated as authoritative news sources in a way that most American broadcasters can only dream about.

 

[Brovion]

I used to be in favour of the licence fee as I thought it meant that the BBC was free from commercial pressures. Ha! Anybody who still believes that still believes in the tooth fairy. The BBC are accountable to nobody but themselves. Every time they want more money they go to the government who force us to give it to them. Then they spend it on ITV-style shows such as Fame Academy or digital channesl that most people can't see.

And don't tell me there are no adverts, every time I switch on the BBC there are glossy film sequences that go on for several minutes extolling the virtues of the different BBC channels and output.

Privatise it now.

 

[JJ McClure]

Not fused. You're paying for a service and it seems fine to me. The thing I always find odd is that if you are registered blind you only get a fiver off!

 

[Yorkie]

Not fused. You're paying for a service and it seems fine to me. The thing I always find odd is that if you are registered blind you only get a fiver off!

Because in the 60's the radio and tv licence were combined. Up to that point you could buy them separately.