Liscence fee, is it value for money?

[Bill Hicks]

I thought I would start a thread regarding the BBC license fee asking for your contribution to determine if the british public think it is value for money or not?
My personal opinion is that the annual large increases in the fee are hard to justify considering the amount of non essential services that the BBC broadcast (Do we realy need two BBC childrens television channels?)
If you are a License fee payer or indeed if you are living abroad and you would like to comment on the BBC's world wide service, then feel free to comment.

[johntheexpat]

The ex-pat community in France, Spain, Germany, Irish Republic and various other locations would like to thank all the UK license payer for contributing to a valuable service. We say its good value for free, but wouldn't like to have to pay for it.
(I don't have it installed myself, because I would rather know about the weather here than in Manchester, but then that's just me.)

[johnscarlet]

please Quick TV licence thought
possible tv licence loophole?
The very first step towards the death of the TV licence fee?
Should the Government increase the TV licence?

Its been done before , but yes its great value imho.
The 2 children's channels are aimed at different age groups . If the ability to provide the service is there, then if you can provide it then why not . Anyone who thinks that if all these different service were not offered there would be a cut in the fee is very much mistaken

[dan54]

[QUOTE/Its been done before , but yes its great value imho.
[/QUOTE]

Not great value imho,BBC full of utter rubbish,does anyone watch Casualty?,endless do up/sell/buy/1 hour makeover your house dross,the list goes on.It would be nice to have the OPTION to pay but then if they gave that choice they know they would lose millions.

[vader100]

Somebody said it on another thread but why does our licence fee go to promote Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals week in week out. It seems when one finishes another of the ****ing things starts.

Why,when it is "funded in a unique way", do they just copy all the crappy commercial shows that the other stations put on?

Can we please have more "unique" programming?

And don't get me started that they have owned the right to show Guinness Premiership rugby highlights for years and only just started showing them this year......at MIDNIGHT on BBC2......and only one matches highlights

[WibXL]

I can see why some people find it great value for money but as somebody who watches very little TV and very few BBC programs it's annoying that I'm having to pay for programs that I've no intention of ever viewing which is almost everything that the BBC makes.

Generally speaking I'll watch the news for an hour a day (that's properly watch as I do sometimes have it on for background noise), Click, Torchwood and sometimes a comedy program once a week and that's it.

Ideally when everything is digital a subscriber service would be launched so that those who want it can have it and those who don't can either use PPV if anything takes their fancy or otherwise don't pay anything.

[Greg]

My licence fee is a right bargain. £70 a year I think it is now.

[mjn]

Good value for money, just wish it wasn't compulsory.

[dBrowne]

Compared to my Blockbuster late fees for films I didn't find time to watch anyway, it's good value.

[Praxidike]

It is value for money I guess (although I do only seem to watch F1 now, so next year will be better value really for me), but I would like a choice.

I'd like the option to not have BBC and not pay, as it is now, it's more like a TV tax.

I'm thinking about claiming rights to toast, and making a toaster tax. Or washing machine tax. Or something. How can one entity just claim the rights to charge for owning TVs?

[LFC_SL]

I make great use of the BBC website and radio stations so in that respect great value for money

Less so with the TV side as I could count on one hand shows that I will watch... but overall can't complain if you spread the cost over a year and take it like that...

Saying that Kevin Spacey in the media today makes a good point regarding the 13 week talent-shows for Andrew Lloyd-Webber's musicals. The BBC do not take any commercial interest in the actual shows when they run and the merchandising. So Andrew gets huge publicity and the BBC get what?

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of AV Forums

[JohnG]

I've always thought it's reasonable value considering what you pay Sky every month. I will say though that I think the BBC has gone downhill recently with all their "dancing with" and talent shows and all that crap, which should be on crap channels like ITV

[virtual22]

Total waste of money for me. The only thing I watch is the football and that's back off to ITV next year. I don't listen to any of the pompous idiots they have on the radio any more and virtually everything on the BBC website can be found else where on the web. If I had the choice I would bin it tomorrow. Still at least I can sleep soundly at night knowing I have helped Jonathan Ross remain out of poverty for a couple of years

The other thing that annoys me is calling it the "licence fee". It's just another sodding tax so call it the BBC Tax.

[Miyazaki]

When you consider that some people pay £400 a year for $ky, who on top of subscription also have adverts, then BBC is a bargain.

Especially when $ky is populated by trash tv with little little or no production values, and often imports too.

[sim667]

Its fine for me, but for my parents who cant recieve freeview its a con as they only get channels 1 + 2.