Quantcast

Article & Poll: Should we keep the BBC Licence Fee?

What do you think about the licence fee

  • The Licence Fee the most appropriate way for the BBC to be funded

    Votes: 105 19.5%
  • The BBC has to change its funding approach to remain relevant

    Votes: 127 23.6%
  • The BBC should become commercial and the licence fee scrapped

    Votes: 295 54.7%
  • Other, please answer in the thread below...

    Votes: 12 2.2%

  • Total voters
    539

Chillie6

Distinguished Member
Problem is it’s not just BBC content, it covers all live tv. So I’m paying sky and the tv license for watching live football.
 

ldoodle

Distinguished Member
Problem is it’s not just BBC content, it covers all live tv. So I’m paying sky and the tv license for watching live football.
This is what I don't get (and covered above). It covers all live TV but only BBC get the revenue.

How anyone ever passed that as OK is fudgeing deluded.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
over £13 a month an absolute joke. I would rather not watch or listen to any BBC content than pay that
It's going up £4, that's 33p a month. Hardly the end of the world.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
This is what I don't get (and covered above). It covers all live TV but only BBC get the revenue.

How anyone ever passed that as OK is fudgeing deluded.
It once had a monopoly and ran all the TV masts, so when any new channels popped up they used the existing equipment.

That of course is no longer the case. :)
 

aVdub

Distinguished Member
Too much for something I really do not use.
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
As a system of funding it is coming to its natural end so at some point in the very near future another way of funding Public Service broadcasting is going to have to be found. That may be subscription or funded out of general taxation but a licence fee for terrestrial broadcast TV than is being made obsolete by technology is not going to be sustainable in the long term.

Why not general taxation and the funds directed to different TV companies to make public service programs that are felt necessary?
 

Tempest

Distinguished Member
Just to say, I would totally oppose the concept of taking money from the general taxpayer to fund massive salaries to entertainers and sporting etc events.

I'd be happy with a VERY small fee to be taken to pay totally towards news and important events that is valuable information that the general public should be able to view and be aware of.

But hell no, taxpayer money to pay for Eastenders, type of junk, hell no.
 

outoftheknow

Distinguished Member
Just to say, I would totally oppose the concept of taking money from the general taxpayer to fund massive salaries to entertainers and sporting etc events.
That though depends how they change things - the rules around it. Here for example in Australia as I mentioned the public broadcaster gets an amount decided by the government of the day. Taken from income tax income. The amount cannot cover massive “celebrity/expert presenter” salaries, nor to pay for major sporting events.

there are a few events that are ringfenced so they must be shown on free to air TV - but we have commercial FTA broadcasters who bid for those either exclusively or in conjunction with satellite. ABC has no such events since they cannot afford to bid for them. They do cricket and many other sports on the radio since that is cheap and cheerful.

the BBC started by charging a licence to receive radio waves - radio and TV. Satellite is microwaves so was all jumbled in. Now they “need” the income to pay for the inflated salaries and sporting events as they compete for viewers share in those things. The way the ABC is set up here they simply have to Provide a public national and local service by TV and radio and that is news and decent programs. Sport and so called reality programs don’t even arise - they aren’t in the market to offer those.

a tax payer funded model works well if you lay the ground rules properly. If you changed the funding model there without dealing with the salaries and event costs - allowing all those to go to commercial broadcasters with ring fencing rules for FTA coverage of some - I agree the tax payer would get a raw deal.

The alternative is for government to grow a pair and stop the salaries etc under the licence model you have now.

status quo is no longer justifiable if looked at by truly independent observers. Trouble is those in control on all sides all have vested interests that continue to make any model unfair.
 

MrFraggle

Distinguished Member
What the BBC laughingly calls its News Channel has devoted practically all its broadcast time to the Democratic Caucuses during the night why does the BBC think the world is remotely interested? I suppose we should be grateful that there is nothing newsworthy happening anywhere else in the world that the BBC we need to no about.
 

ldoodle

Distinguished Member
Why not general taxation and the funds directed to different TV companies to make public service programs that are felt necessary?
As long as it’s not mandatory with promise of prison, they can do it however they want.

I don’t personally see the need for public broadcasting. The obvious thing is to do what literally everyone else does and commercialise themselves. Having a ‘no ads’ tag line is stuck in the dark ages.
 

Pacifico

Distinguished Member
I don’t personally see the need for public broadcasting.
I think that is a separate issue - you have to define what you consider Public Service Broadcasting.

As a previous poster mentioned, Australia has already done this so it shouldnt be that hard to come to some agreement.
 

Ormy

Active Member
I very much resent paying the BBC licence fee for several reasons:

On the blurb I got sent about the licence fee, it states you have to pay it if you watch ANY live broadcast TV, even if its never BBC programming. E.g. If I watch Dave on freeview 24/7 I still have to pay the licence fee? Why? Make's no sense. Or does it go towards general broadcasting infrastructure that all channels use?

Secondly, I'd happily pay the licence fee if the news at the BBC were actually impartial, but it's not. In the last few years I've noticed a sharp increase in right-wing/conservative bias on the BBC news programmes. The TV news has been affected much worse than the Radio News, Radio is still within sight of impartiality at least.

Third, hugely inflated salaries for executives and senior presenters, totally unjustifiable. Why should taxpayers be asked to pay an additional fee to support these outrageous salaries? If the salary is justified, the BBC can collect the funds as a commercial business.
 

Goooner

Distinguished Member
Secondly, I'd happily pay the licence fee if the news at the BBC were actually impartial, but it's not. In the last few years I've noticed a sharp increase in Left-Wing/Remain bias on the BBC news programmes. The TV news has been affected much worse than the Radio News, Radio is still within sight of impartiality at least.
Agree with most of what you said, fixed one bit for you though :)
 
Last edited:

Ormy

Active Member
Agree with most of what you said, fixed one bit for you though :)
I knew as soon as I'd written it someone would do that. :laugh:
 

nheather

Distinguished Member
I very much resent paying the BBC licence fee for several reasons:

On the blurb I got sent about the licence fee, it states you have to pay it if you watch ANY live broadcast TV, even if its never BBC programming. E.g. If I watch Dave on freeview 24/7 I still have to pay the licence fee? Why? Make's no sense. Or does it go towards general broadcasting infrastructure that all channels use?

Secondly, I'd happily pay the licence fee if the news at the BBC were actually impartial, but it's not. In the last few years I've noticed a sharp increase in right-wing/conservative bias on the BBC news programmes. The TV news has been affected much worse than the Radio News, Radio is still within sight of impartiality at least.

Third, hugely inflated salaries for executives and senior presenters, totally unjustifiable. Why should taxpayers be asked to pay an additional fee to support these outrageous salaries? If the salary is justified, the BBC can collect the funds as a commercial business.
About 4 years ago I would have been ardently defending the licence fee, acknowledging what you say about 1) and 3), but replying pointing out the great TV and service they provide. I would have refuted 2), saying that they are the most honest and trusted news service in the world.

But now I am fully in agreement with you on 2), so much so that I now support the restructuring of BBC funding. Something rotten has happened to them over the last 4 years, yes Brexit, but not just that.

Time has come for change the BBC has lost its compass.

Cheers,

Nigel
 
Last edited:

Goooner

Distinguished Member
Indeed, if it’s as good as they themselves, or others would have us believe it is, they’d have no trouble finding themselves via adverts of subscription.
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest News

High End Munich 2020 Hi-Fi Show cancelled
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung leads global TV market for 14th straight year
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Apple wireless home cinema audio hinted by patent?
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Samsung and BT deliver UK’s first live 8K sports broadcast
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bowers & Wilkins confirms corporate changes
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom