Scrap TV license fees?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think you should re-check that.

Actually, I was partially wrong. Channel 4 DID initially recieve funding from the licence fee, but that was terminated. They are, however, debating applying for new funding from the licence to help pay for the transition to digital programming (http://www.c21media.net/news/detail....e=22418&area=1)

The same way they have folded die to the influx of all the sattelite channels?

Most of the ITV channels have merged to save money. Advertising revenues have dropped massively because of fragmentation of the market (no quotable link for that, I have relatives and friends in the business and the quote comes from them).

Another way to look at it. The satellite and cable television market accounts for a fraction of the total viewing public, and, as such, the impact on ITV & Channel 4 (channel 5 was not around) was, at first, minimal. It has increased, but what effect would adding a supplier of advertising space that is the same size (or larger) than ITV have on all the channels?

The laws of Economics (particularly supply and demand) would suggest it will reduce the price of advertising space massively.

Of course, this will bring profits down (maybe not cause ITV to fold, but certainly smaller companies). However, the cost of producing decent Television will not go down. The practical upshot of that is we will get more cheap imports, more soaps and more reality TV. Purely because they are relatively cheap. Do you really want that?

This has been said before - so what. If the BBC didn't exist the technicians, technology and services would have been available somewhere else.

NTL for that matter, you may raise your eyebrows but NTL/IBA where are just as talented in broadcast technology.

Actually, while I am aware of NTL's track record in the broadcast industry (they are very respected), AFAIK, they did previously rely on the BBC for training.

The same licence fee also allows the Beeb to turn out crap series after series.

In fairness, ALL channels have good programmes and ALL channels have bad programmes. With ITV, you don't pay for them (thank God, 90% of their output is crap IMO). With the various satellite and cable channels, it's different. You pay something toward the crap they put out, but you don't have to pay for that crap.

[allieyoung666]

To be honest, we do not watch BBC as nothing interesting is ever on, I am sick to death of watching repeats all the time even the kids moan!!!!!! and they are only 7 and 8. We get Sky and I think it is very good value for money, so if we were given a choice, I think sky would win time and time again

Originally Posted by Gogogo

BBC World Service,"Dedicated to the friendship of English-speaking peoples"

Not forgetting "Nation shall speak peace unto nation"

when I lived overseas I valued its World Service radio broadcasts and was always amazed just how many locals would tune in to get an alternative to local state media.

Very true, because, despite all the claims of political bias (usually from UK politicians who don't like the BBC saying things they don't like), the Beeb is generally noted in the rest of the world for its political impartiality, especially in countries where you only get the "official" version of the news.

Originally Posted by Dave Stones

get rid of the lience fee. £120 for channels i never watch, i cant justify that

Have to agree with you on this one.

[Millay]

The BBC's internatonal ventures are great for ex pats all over the world, where a nation of travellers have inhabited many parts of the world, and I love the fact that no matter where I am in the world, I can get a little of the BBC.

£10 a month for all the output, come on now, who can honestly hold there hands up and say they do not use and like the services they offer. Web Radio and TV. I don't buy a newspaper, i read my news on the bbc website. so £10 a month compared to the cost of a newspaper is good in my opinion. I don't subscribe to sky but do have the box so having bbc news 24 and channels three and 4 make great sense to me, less the cost of a sky access pacakge at £9.99 a month so im starting to make some real savings here.

I think some people forget how much the BBC is all around them and take its services for granted and just think they are paying £120 a year for two tv channels....

Hey I dunno, i somehow think people would be much more vocal if the BBC where to be split up and advert funded.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Millay

The BBC's internatonal ventures are great for ex pats all over the world, where a nation of travellers have inhabited many parts of the world, and I love the fact that no matter where I am in the world, I can get a little of the BBC.

£10 a month for all the output, come on now, who can honestly hold there hands up and say they do not use and like the services they offer. Web Radio and TV. I don't buy a newspaper, i read my news on the bbc website. so £10 a month compared to the cost of a newspaper is good in my opinion. I don't subscribe to sky but do have the box so having bbc news 24 and channels three and 4 make great sense to me, less the cost of a sky access pacakge at £9.99 a month so im starting to make some real savings here.

I think some people forget how much the BBC is all around them and take its services for granted and just think they are paying £120 a year for two tv channels....

Hey I dunno, i somehow think people would be much more vocal if the BBC where to be split up and advert funded.

Dont really browse bbc webby or listen to their web radio, bareley watch any bbc tv at all and havnt done for years, ex pats pay no licence, why is my family paying for them and others here in the UK who do watch bbc ? purely because we have the facility to watch summat we dont really want 98% of the time. Iv asked cable to chop bbc so we cant recieve them but they cant because they are not allowed. TV licence fee is just tax or if you want to look at it in a more sinister way it is really extortion, got a tv pay the tax, dont pay the tax we will put you in court and you pay the fine.

[me283]

I think the problem is that we don't have an option. Many people would pay the licence fee if it were optional, but it's not, it's compulsory. If we were able to say "no thanks, I'll go without", then we would effectively be making a choice, as we do with cable channels etc. If you don't want it, or can't afford it, you don't have it. The licence fee is just imposed and enforced. It's hardly democratic, is it?

I personally don't agree with the licence fee, because I don't have a choice. Sure, I occasionally watch TV, and I may well watch BBC (not sure - I don't watch it often enough), but if the BBC were not available I wouldn't lose sleep.

One other thing that amuses me is the enforcement side of it. I remember the ads years ago showing the detector vans, which they claimed knew which house and even which room had a TV, and which channel they were watching. Turns out that was a load of rubbish! They sent three letters to a flat I owned which was empty, saying I HAD to tell them if I had a TV or not. Three letters, even though I explained it all in replies to the first two.

[aliferste]

Originally Posted by Chris T

There isn't another broadcaster in the UK - arguably the world - that produces drama of the quality of the BBC. Anyone see The Deputy last night? Jonathan Creek on Saturday? Just two examples of what the Beeb happens to be putting out at the moment and which I happen to think are really quite good.

Without reading the rest of the thread as I am about to go to work, to answer your questions NO and NO I did not see them..... and it is likely I will neve watch them. So why am I paying for this great drama?

If you want to watch it you pay for it

Originally Posted by aliferste

Without reading the rest of the thread as I am about to go to work, to answer your questions NO and NO I did not see them..... and it is likely I will neve watch them. So why am I paying for this great drama?

If you want to watch it you pay for it

Sky News are reporting that it looks like we are going to have to pay the BBC TAX for another 10 years . Only in this country can you be forced by law to pay for a product that you dont use or want .

[me283]

Originally Posted by Bill C

Sky News are reporting that it looks like we are going to have to pay the BBC TAX for another 10 years . Only in this country can you be forced by law to pay for a product that you dont use or want .

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. The licence fee could be viewed as a tax. People will argue that nobody is forced to buy a TV, but then that really isn't the issue. If I buy a car, I only have to pay road tax if it's used the road; if I buy a TV I have to buy a licence regardless of whether I "use" the BBC.

I recall hearing two bits of info that may just be urban myth. One is that if you buy a TV that is de-tuned so that it cannot receive BBC channels, you don't need a licence? The other concerns someone who was taken to court for not having a licence but managed to prove (no idea how) that he only used the TV to watch pre-recorded videos. Perhaps someone could confirm/denounce/clarify these two points?

Originally Posted by aliferste

Without reading the rest of the thread as I am about to go to work, to answer your questions NO and NO I did not see them..... and it is likely I will neve watch them. So why am I paying for this great drama?

If you want to watch it you pay for it

Ahem ...

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...5&postcount=14

You're caught in a time loop, my friend. Or maybe you're just very consistent ...

Originally Posted by Bill C

Sky News are reporting that it looks like we are going to have to pay the BBC TAX for another 10 years . Only in this country can you be forced by law to pay for a product that you dont use or want .

I don't want nuclear weapons and wars with Iraq but I still have to pay for them as part of my income tax. Nature of the beast. The direct link between the licence fee and the BBC is why it is such a political hot potato. One suspects if it was subsumed into wider taxation it wouldn't upset people such as you quite so much.

Whatever, I still think the licence fee represents extraorinarily good value for money and that we would lose so much in terms of creativity, quality and cost efficiency is we were to chuck the BBC to the commercial lions.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. The licence fee could be viewed as a tax. People will argue that nobody is forced to buy a TV, but then that really isn't the issue. If I buy a car, I only have to pay road tax if it's used the road; if I buy a TV I have to buy a licence regardless of whether I "use" the BBC.

I recall hearing two bits of info that may just be urban myth. One is that if you buy a TV that is de-tuned so that it cannot receive BBC channels, you don't need a licence? The other concerns someone who was taken to court for not having a licence but managed to prove (no idea how) that he only used the TV to watch pre-recorded videos. Perhaps someone could confirm/denounce/clarify these two points?

Presumably you'd have to prove your household, car and portable radios couldn't get BBC channels either and that your PC can't access BBC online. Which makes me wonder why they call it the TV licence?!

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by me283

I recall hearing two bits of info that may just be urban myth. One is that if you buy a TV that is de-tuned so that it cannot receive BBC channels, you don't need a licence? The other concerns someone who was taken to court for not having a licence but managed to prove (no idea how) that he only used the TV to watch pre-recorded videos. Perhaps someone could confirm/denounce/clarify these two points?

According to the TV Licensing website you need a license if....

If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one.

This is a very timely resurrection of a very old thread!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4309325.stm

Looks like the licence fee will indeed survive for at least another 10 years, although this decision is in part a recognition that if the licence fee were ever to be scrapped, it would require more than 10 years of planning to implement an alternative regime.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by me283

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. The licence fee could be viewed as a tax. People will argue that nobody is forced to buy a TV, but then that really isn't the issue. If I buy a car, I only have to pay road tax if it's used the road; if I buy a TV I have to buy a licence regardless of whether I "use" the BBC.

I recall hearing two bits of info that may just be urban myth. One is that if you buy a TV that is de-tuned so that it cannot receive BBC channels, you don't need a licence? The other concerns someone who was taken to court for not having a licence but managed to prove (no idea how) that he only used the TV to watch pre-recorded videos. Perhaps someone could confirm/denounce/clarify these two points?

According to the TV licencing company, you do not need a licence if you do not wath or record TV (so if you are only using the TV to watch DVDs, pre-recorded videos or a games console you don't need a licence). You do need to notify them in writing. however. (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp#link1)
, but you do need a licence if you are planning to record any television (terrestrial or satellite/cable) http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp#link2