We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

BBC Licence Fee


flycatcher1

Likes # 0

Some years ago I took part in "Any Questions". I asked if the BBC Licence Fee was past its sell-by date? Gerald Kaufman was on the Team and I well knew his antipathy to the Licence Fee.

His arguments did not convince me and, in the past, I always trusted the good old BBC. During World Wide travels the BBC World Service always provide a reliable update of world events with little UK slant.

As the years have passed I have come to look upon the BBC less favourably, exorbitanttant salaries, expenses and perks together with variable programming has made me think that it is time for a change.

If a cost reduced BBC was paid for by general taxation the poorer people would save money and the expense added to the richer people, even the Oldies like me.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

morddwyd

I don't really have the time for another of your wriggling sessions, so I'll leave you with it.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

robgf

The BBC is a public service broadcaster. It's unique, and has been the envy of the broadcasting world for a long time, partly because it doesn't have to court advertisers to stay alive.

Last year (2011) was a record year for the BBC in terms of selling programmes to other countries. The corporation sold 74,000 hours of high-quality UK programming to over 690 customers from the USA to Kazakhstan to Indonesia. Those countries take BBC output because their own programming can't compare - David Attenborough has consistently been the top-selling TV presenter in the world.

There are all kinds of problems at the BBC - that's been the case since the day the corporation started, but to dismiss it as being 'on borrowed time' is to completely misunderstand its status as a quality broadcaster, both here and abroad.

Like this post
oresome

Likes # 0

The BBC costs me around 40p per day, which I consider a bargain.

I'm sure with a lot of pain they could cut costs and reduce the figure to nearer 36p.

Like this post
Bing.alau

Likes # 0

I would have thought that by selling the programs it makes to other countries it must be making a tidy profit. Who gets any profit if they do make it? I suppose the answer to that is the government!

Like this post
oresome

Likes # 0

Can I pay another 40p per day and eliminate the adverts on the commercial stations please?

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

Jock1e

"Not the BBC they just increase the Licence fee."

No they don't, because they can't do that without the consent of parliament.

"But we would not need to pay for a license if the BBC was the same as the others and used advertising instead."

No, we wouldn't, but neither would we get any of the minority programming which the BBC is obliged to provide under the terms of the Royal charter. What we would get is a constant diet of low-grade reality TV and other stuff that is cheap to make - opium for the masses. Advertisers would have to spread their budgets even more thinly, and we would lose the quality TV that other countries envy so much.

"Under EU rules it is illegal what the BBC is doing. They cannot fine you for not having a licence."

That's complete rubbish - there is an act of parliament that governs what the BBC can and cannot do with regard to licence fee evasion.

If you're going to rant about something you might at least make the effort to do a bit of research first, and get some of the facts right.

Like this post
Sweet-Tea

Likes # 0

The BBC Licence fee should be scrapped. The government should find other ways of funding. The whole thing needs a huge revamp~ revenue and programming!

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

Jock1e

"About having to go to the Government for a price increase.I assumed everyone new that."

Well you didn't.

You said, in an earlier post:- **"There is no denying that but even great company's have gone bankrupt or put out of business. Not the BBC they just increase the Licence fee."**

I explained that the BBC cannot do that without the approval of parliament.

Like this post
robgf

Likes # 0

FE

"Last year (2011) was a record year for the BBC in terms of selling programmes to other countries. The corporation sold 74,000 hours of high-quality UK programming to over 690 customers from the USA to Kazakhstan to Indonesia."

74,000 hours does sound impressive, but is actually only just over 100 hours each. If we consider 6 hours of peak viewing time each night, for 365 days, that totals 2100 hours, so the 100 hours of quality viewing, is just 5% of output, not so impressive.

While I appreciate that a fair proportion of the population enjoys the output from the BBC, the remainder of the population is not so enamored. I fail to see, why those that don't use a service, should be forced (on threat of fine, or prison!) to pay for it. I enjoy traveling, perhaps you would all like to pay into the robgf travel fund.

The BBC could easily be changed into a subscription based service like Sky, being funded by fans.

Like this post
oresome

Likes # 0

While I appreciate that a fair proportion of the population enjoys the output from the BBC, the remainder of the population is not so enamored. I fail to see, why those that don't use a service, should be forced (on threat of fine, or prison!) to pay for it.

I think that's a fair point, but implementing a scrambled subscription service for the TV and radio output would be difficult and costly.

I think the present system works well while there is a clear majority of the population who get some benefit from it. There's a growing number who probably subscribe to Sky and object to also paying the licence fee.

Should the BBC go aggressively head to head with Sky over say, sports rights, there would be complaints from the commercial broadcaster about unfair competition from a publicly funded organisation.

My view as I've stated in earlier posts is that the BBC represents good value, but I do think it has expanded beyond it's remit in recent years with an impressive web site and multiple TV and radio channels which suppress commercial competition and cause resentment.

Perhaps if it were cut down to size, people wouldn't mind paying a more modest licence fee as the original post suggested.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best camera phone of 2015: iPhone 6 Plus vs LG G4 vs Galaxy S6 vs One M9 vs Nexus 6

IDG UK Sites

In defence of BlackBerrys

IDG UK Sites

Why we should reserve judgement on Apple ditching Helvetica in OS X/iOS for the Apple Watch's San...

IDG UK Sites

Retina 3.3GHz iMac 27in preview: Apple cuts £400 of price of Retina iMac with new model