[shoestring25]

i think the bbc should be funded differently so we dont have to. i watch sky mostly and its my choice to buy it or not. i object to having to buy a tv licence before i can buy sky.

[Garrett]

How do you watch Sky thought an aerial or sat dish, because part of the licence goes to the upkeep of the terrestrial transmitters. The BBC also provides radio which comes out of the licence fee.
I object to paying extra for my food stuff because the manufactures increase it because of the advertising on ITV, Ch4, FIVE and Satellite, even if I got rid of the TV I still would have to pay where as in your objecting to paying a licence fee can be solved just don’t watch TV.
I also believe the BBC hold the standards up of the other channels and where else do you get such great documentaries as The Blue Planet or watch a large quantity of films uninterrupted by adverts.

[Mr.The.Spoon]

The BBC also has one of the best internet news websites available. Other sites might get the news before them but I haven't seen any that are as well laid out as the BBC or with as many pictures and diagrams.

Also as Garrett pointed out, the BC helps keep the standards of the other channels up. Imagine them all dropping to ITV or Channel 5 levels

(Although it is a bit strange, a master theif advocating the paying of licences!)

[LV426]

The BBC is responsible for much, much more than simply its advert-free (and, for the major channels, most of the time, logo-free) Television service and radio service. Broadcasting engineering and research/development at its best? Co-inventors of NICAM. Most professional news service in the World. The list is never ending.

The sooner people recognise that the TV licence fee isn't a subscription to the BBC - it is a tax on TV viewing which happens to be earmarked for a specific purpose - the sooner these arguments will cease.

OR.....isn't it equally valid to say such things as:

> I am a pacifist so I won't pay that part of my income tax or VAT that funds the services

> I have no children so I want to opt out of paying for education.

> I have Private Health so I won't pay my NI.

etc.

No, it isn't.

[Garrett]

Originally posted by Mr.The.Spoon

(Although it is a bit strange, a master theif advocating the paying of licences!)

Only you lot but not me.

The BBC is also an early adaptor of new technology such as Widescreen they have been showing programs in this format for years yet on Sky they are only introducing it. Even on the extra subscription film channels they where very late in adopting it.

[alfablue]

Keep the licence fee! Best value AV entertainment product I have ever purchased.

Think about American TV - the best shows are on HBO. Why? Because it is a pay per view / subscription channel not reliant on advertisers.

Shows like Sopranos, 6 Feet Under, Sex and the City would not get aired on mainstream networks because the content being strong (and part of the good quality scripts / dramas that they are), the advertisers would pull out around these shows. For example, Fox dropped Sopranos after the pilot, yet it grosses over $100 million a year. So the tame network dross on US TV is because it is controlled by advertisers.

Whilst British viewers might not be so reactive, there would still be a similar effect here. Also, as said above, nothing is free, we pay the price of advertising on the products in our shops - and I hardly ever watch ITV!

Want to dumb down British TV? Scrap the licence fee and have advertising on BBC.

Add to everything pointed out above concerning infrastructure, technology, news etc. We have the best broadcaster in the world with the BBC, most countries would love it - only us Brits fail to appreciate when we are well off!

As for the private health care analogy, well said! - yeah, stop funding the NHS and see how many nurses, doctors, physio's, radiographers, etc etc get trained to staff your privelidged hotels (the NHS trains them!); see how many multi-million £ MRI scanners you can find in private setups; and also, don't expect there to be a bed in your NHS intensive care unit when the private clinic co*ks it up, or an open A&E when you smash yourself up in your aspirational, I'm all right Jack (but sadly misguided) 3 series beemer. Same issues - infrastructure, innovation, skills...

Just for info, NI contributions fund benefits and pensions, only recently was 1% earmarked for the NHS which is predominantly funded through general taxation. (I just say that because whenever NI goes up people bleat that they dont use the NHS so shouldn't pay, when in fact it is mostly about providing social security when their small businesses go t*ts up - to hell with the safety net eh?).

And And... and despite the problem of demand exceeding supply and the rise of consumerism; despite waiting 10 hours in A&E with your broken fingernail (because they are probably preventing someone else from dying); despite mistakes; and despite having some very poor "customer service" at times (as does your average organisation - like the many shopping horror stories on this forum) the NHS is still the envy of the world....like the BBC. (Please don't bother trying to tell me healthcare is better in Australia - it may be okay if you don't get chronically sick).

Whoops - was that off topic? Well, I think some of the issues are similar to the BBC thing.

Oh my god, I'm off on one now! Is there anyone left I forgot to offend

[shoestring25]

stop going on about the NHS

[alfablue]

K - finished!

[Garrett]

miller25 correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Sky is as bad as what you make the BBC to be if you want the movie channels or the sports channel you have to have to pay for a basic subscriptions, also if you only want a couple of channels say Sky One and Sci-Fi channel you cannot have them on there own but have to pay for a hoard you may not want?

[shoestring25]

it all about choicei can choose to buy sky, i have to buy a tv licence to watch tele. if the bbc could fund themselves then there would be less of a need for one

[adrianmurray]

Time to add a bit of balance to the thread

I object to paying extra for my food stuff because the manufactures increase it because of the advertising on ITV, Ch4, FIVE and Satellite...

Stick to the Tesco Value range then. You have a choice, that's the key difference.

I also believe the BBC hold the standards up of the other channels

An often quoted myth. I fail to see how Nicky Cambell and 'Come and Have a Go If You Think You're Smart Enough' is holding up standards. The bbc is just as capable of churning out crap as the commercial stations. It is no better or worse.

and where else do you get such great documentaries

Take your pick from any of the factual satellite channels and even channel 5 is putting on a good show at present wrt documentaries.

or watch a large quantity of films uninterrupted by adverts

DVDs - better quality and get to watch them whenever I want as often as I want and often in the same decade that the film was released!!! I also get to choose which ones I buy.

Broadcasting engineering and research/development at its best? Co-inventors of NICAM..

Nicam, whoopee. Where's the HDTV? Even Australia has some HDTV.

Most professional news service in the World. The list is never ending

The dullest news service in the world. So dull and lacking in ideas that it's now just a Sky News look-a-like but with grey presenters. Only brightened up by oversized screen graphics and text (a la Sky) blocking the news images. If I want to read the news I'll buy a paper or read a web site.

The BBC also has one of the best internet news websites available

agreed, although I'd like to know how much it costs and why the british tax payer is providing this service to the rest of the world.

The BBC is responsible for much, much more than simply its advert-free

It's not advert free. It's full of endless self-promotion trailers. Just the same as adverts except they don't generate income.

> I have no children so I want to opt out of paying for education. I have Private Health so I won't pay my NI.

Health, Education, TV. Spot the odd one out. And to the joker who said:

the NHS is still the envy of the world

you need to edit your post. Here, copy and paste this:

the NHS is still the envy of the 3rd world

I think that just about covers it.

[shoestring25]

top stuff adrianmurray

[Branxx]

" if the bbc could fund themselves then there would be less of a need for one"

TV License is a tax levied on those watching TV, which imply that you are complaining about high level of taxes in this country.

Let me remind you that the 'liberation' of Iraq has already costing the taxpayer two annual contributions to BBC.

If I ever get a chance to vote on what would I want to abolish in order to reduce my tax bill, BBC is not going to be high on the axe list.

[alfablue]

Originally posted by adrianmurray
Time to add a bit of balance to the thread


An often quoted myth. I fail to see how Nicky Cambell and 'Come and Have a Go If You Think You're Smart Enough' is holding up standards. The bbc is just as capable of churning out crap as the commercial stations. It is no better or worse.

Well, you're one for balance - you offer one example (and of course BBC produces low brow stuff to suit the low brow viewers they have to serve, many of which are anti licence fee) but taking the output as a whole it is a cut above! It does produce better TV

[i]Take your pick from any of the factual satellite channels and even channel 5 is putting on a good show at present wrt documentaries.[/B]

I agree about C5 documentaries, but in a way you are contradicting your argument about standards - they have to raise their game to compete with the BBC. But the original poster cited Blue Planet - documentary series' of that quality (and investment) are only possible because of the public service and education remit. Whilst there are plenty other interesting documentaries, they rarely have the depth and breadth or production values of those major BBC series.

[i]DVDs - better quality and get to watch them whenever I want as often as I want and often in the same decade that the film was released!!! I also get to choose which ones I buy.[/B]

I love DVD's too - but how much do they cost versus the licence fee, which costs less than one chart DVD per month.

[i]agreed, although I'd like to know how much it costs and why the british tax payer is providing this service to the rest of the world. [/B]

Er...it's called marketing. Revenues come from the high profile of the BBC when the world buys the TV output.

[i]It's not advert free. It's full of endless self-promotion trailers. Just the same as adverts except they don't generate income.[/B]

They are BETWEEN programmes. You would prefer NOT to know what is on next?

[i]you need to edit your post. Here, copy and paste this:

the NHS is the envy of th 3rd world
[/B]

Well it's easy to sloganise (did you read that in the Daily Mail?). Name me a 1st world country where you can see a family doctor for free, and get £100's worth of drugs for £6.20, or less! In most other 1st world countries you pay private insurance and they drop you like a hot potato if you ever get a chronic disease, or you are even more unlucky and are born with one. Get real

[Miyazaki]

Sky is so bad it doesn't bare thinking about. 999 channels and nothing on! You pay a subscription for sky and then they have the nerve to make 1/3 of your viewing time adverts. It also seems that over 50% of programmes on sky are either commissioned by the BBC or are BBC re-runs.

It is all about receivership. ALL commercial channels work to a system whereby they are making programmes purely to gain revenue from their advertisers. This means that ALL the TV they make is aimed at the lowest common denominator, or whoever the advertisers choose they want certain time-slots aimed at.

The BBC turns this on its head. They purely make programmes for people, not advertisers, and the lack of this pressure means that they can think about a programme and what it will contain.

The BBC's mandate is to "Educate, Inform and Entertain". This is still much the same Reithian ideology that has endured, even from his day. The BBC isn't just packaging a product to numb our brains, giving us microwaved programming, the same tasteless mush, night after night. They are seeking to enlighten us, provoke our thoughts and make us think. It is an institution, a proud bastion of Britishness crying in the empty wilderness of Britian's profoundly apathetic hearts.

It is Britain, and to stifle it and ultimately kill it by abolishing the license fee is like stabbing yourself in the heart.

[Garrett]

Originally posted by adrianmurray
Stick to the Tesco Value range then. You have a choice, that's the key difference.

An often quoted myth. I fail to see how Nicky Cambell and 'Come and Have a Go If You Think You're Smart Enough' is holding up standards. The bbc is just as capable of churning out crap as the commercial stations. It is no better or worse.

DVDs - better quality and get to watch them whenever I want as often as I want and often in the same decade that the film was released!!! I also get to choose which ones I buy.


It's not advert free. It's full of endless self-promotion trailers. Just the same as adverts except they don't generate income.

That is still taking away my choice of which brand I wish to purchase, also no doubt some of the price includes advertising cost. If you did without TV you would still live but you cannot live without food. Even people who do not have TV’s still pay for advertising on it.

BSB brought a better system out to Sky but they merged and switched that system off and just look at the crap that started appearing since they started broadcasting and on screen graphics, increased advert breaks. Just look on some sat channels how long a 30 minute program takes 40 minutes in some cases.

As mentioned to DVD’s I think for the same amount of programming the BBC do you will pay quite a bit more about 6.5 DVD’s is what you’d get for the licence fee.

As to them self promoting themselves only yesterday I heard someone complain that there was a program on the BBC and they missed it because it had not been advertised seem they cannot win what ever they do.

If the BBC isn’t so great just look at the votes on which is the best and worst channels.

[Garrett]

Originally posted by miller25
it all about choicei can choose to buy sky, i have to buy a tv licence to watch tele. if the bbc could fund themselves then there would be less of a need for one

No it’s the same choice, you are complaining about you have to buy one service to get the other, to get the film channels you have to spend money first on the basic channels whether you want them or not.

The choice to spend the money on Sky is there, we have no choice with the BBC its extortion, the choice should be there if people want to pay for Sky let em and if they want to pay for the BBC let em also, give us a choice to pay or not to pay

[alfablue]

Foxy - look the choice thing - it has been said already but needs repeating:

1) If all TV is commercial / advertising funded, we ALL have NO CHOICE but to pay the levy on purchases we make, even if we don't have a TV!

2) You cannot buy Sky premium channels without paying for the dross - YOU HAVE NO CHOICE THERE!

[shoestring25]

1) If all TV is commercial / advertising funded, we ALL have NO CHOICE but to pay the levy on purchases we make, even if we don't have a TV!

2) You cannot buy Sky premium channels without paying for the dross - YOU HAVE NO CHOICE THERE!

on point 1 we already do pay the levy on purchases we make because every other channel has product adverts, apart from the BBC.

on point 2 you do have a choice you can have just the normal sky channels and then choose not to have the premium channels. its the same as if i went out and rented a film i could go out and rent one or not, my choice.

i agree with foxy

[shoestring25]

if the BBC channels ran adverts like all the other channels and it ment i didn't have to fork out £116 a year (and rising), i would be up for that.

I mentioned this in another TV licence thread, but I think it bears repeating. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is very similar to the BBC: it has a long history of creating great, cutting-edge programming, and raises the bar for all other channels in the country. Unfortunately, Canada doesn't have a licence fee, so the CBC and all other public broadcasting channels are consistently underfunded.

The potential is still there, but without the funding, CBC just can't make the same strides as the BBC. Sure, the BBC wastes money on some things that I think are pointless, but it also produces some programmes that would never get produced on ad-based TV. I think the fee is a small price to pay for this.

Regarding the BBC website:

agreed, although I'd like to know how much it costs and why the british tax payer is providing this service to the rest of the world.

I'm proud that the BBC is providing free, unbiased journalism across the globe. (well, about as unbiased as you can get these days) The media in some countries is terribly partisan, and I think it's a good thing that people with Internet access can hear all sides to a story.

[alfablue]

Originally posted by miller25
on point 1 we already do pay the levy on purchases we make because every other channel has product adverts, apart from the BBC.

BUT the levy would be more, or the BBC's ability to produce quality output would be reduced

on point 2 you do have a choice you can have just the normal sky channels and then choose not to have the premium channels. its the same as if i went out and rented a film i could go out and rent one or not, my choice.

You CANNOT buy the premium channels WITHOUT the dross - that isn't a choice. (Your choice is to buy the dross, only - great choice!).

With the licence fee you have no choice, true, but you get a great product.

And even if you derive no benefit, your children (or other peoples children), other adults, and society as a whole benefit from the "educate, entertain and inform" doctrine.

Add to this, the BBC is a powerful force for democracy - that incumbant governments usually go to war with the BBC is a testament to that. What do you get with SKY? Murdoch's right-wing editorship - and he DOES have a hands on approach to what they print and broadcast in their media.

Murdoch has a well known anti-BBC agenda, maybe too much Sky has clouded your judgement.

[Garrett]

Originally posted by miller25
on point 1 we already do pay the levy on purchases we make because every other channel has product adverts, apart from the BBC.

on point 2 you do have a choice you can have just the normal sky channels and then choose not to have the premium channels. its the same as if i went out and rented a film i could go out and rent one or not, my choice.

i agree with foxy

on point 1 yes we pay a levy on stuff for advertising, if the firms that advertise have to increase there budget on advertising to do so on the BBC they will pass the increase onto the consumer.
Also the money from the licence goes to more than just programming so that would have to be found in taxes somewhere else.

on point 2 you do have a choice you can have just the normal terrestrial channels and then choose not to have Sky. its the same as if I went out and rented a film I could go out and rent one or not, my choice.

[Rad]

I've read this with a bit of interest, both parties have valid points.

I still think you should have a choice to be honest.

Out of interest does any other country in the world have to pay for a TV license, if so who and do they produce good telly programs ??, Who payed for such classics as Friends, The Xfiles, Babylon 5, neighbours hmm Kylie (joke)

Rich.

PS. Don't we have a Tax on being alive as well (Council tax).

[Ed Selley]

Hell, for years you've been paying for Eurofighter and some smart Helicopters that can't fly through clouds- the TV license is the least of your worries- at least I get Top Gear and a news service that may be "dull" but retains a modicum of integrity.

[alfablue]

Rad

the problem is there is an illusion of choice with commercially funded TV - or anything. You are really just fed what is commercially attractive to companies and their shareholders, not what you want or need.

How well did the privatised Railtrack serve it's customers? Well, not at all, it served it's shareholders, and the results were lethal.

[Rad]

alfablue,

I get your point but when do we ever really get a say??, I don't remember the BBC ever sending me a questionaire asking me what type of telly I'd like to be watching.

Rich.

[alfablue]

Hi Rich

Have a look at the BBC policy statements here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/statements/

The chair of governers' forward explains about consultation. They do consult, but obviously not everyone individually. Also, as they come up to charter renewal they do invite ALL viewers to contribute opinions.

The consultation is now closed

http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/

and the consultation process:

http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/pc_index.html

and there is a quick questionnaire to allow anyone to contribute:

http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/q...tions_form.asp


But we did get the chance to have our say

[Garrett]

Look on the bright side miller25 in 2052 you can have a free TV licence.