|
|
Post by Ricky Otto on Sept 16, 2010 8:56:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Sept 16, 2010 9:00:40 GMT
I'm on the fence here. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Sept 16, 2010 10:38:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by amarillo on Sept 16, 2010 11:09:14 GMT
I do think the BBC is a valuable service, but the license fee should be scrapped and the BBC funded through ordinary tax. I'd be happy to pay the extra.
The idea of needing a "license" to operate a TV is quite frankly ridiculous!
|
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Sept 16, 2010 11:20:21 GMT
The idea of needing a "license" to operate a TV is quite frankly ridiculous! You say that, but some of these new-fangled tellies are getting pretty complex...  |
|
|
|
Post by boris on Sept 16, 2010 12:33:17 GMT
It's 'licence'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Otto on Sept 16, 2010 12:46:33 GMT
English is a dying language.
|
|
|
|
Post by boris on Sept 16, 2010 13:07:18 GMT
Amerikan is on the way up, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony W on Sept 16, 2010 13:53:25 GMT
I do think the BBC is a valuable service, but the license fee should be scrapped and the BBC funded through ordinary tax. I'd be happy to pay the extra. The idea of needing a "license" to operate a TV is quite frankly ridiculous! Hang on, what? You want the cost of the BBC to be spread over everyone, regardless of whether they have a TV or not? Surely it's vastly fairer the way it is - basically a TV tax for all who have a TV. Personally I'm more than happy to pay the 12 quid a month or whatever it is to maintain the BBC. It gives us some of the highest quality and definitely the most varied range of TV programming anywhere in the world. It gives us some of the best radio stations in the world, playing the sort of eclectic mix of music you just don't find on mainstream radio stations anywhere else. The combination of the above two go along way towards giving opportunities to British actors/musicians/writers/producers etc. to hone their abilities, and keeps British talent at the forefront globally. We also have probably the best and certainly one of the most ubiquitous global news services. And it means we don't have any advertising. Honestly, comparing to what I've seen of other countries' TV & radio - ours is just flat out better. And a lot of that is because the licence fee gives the people who make it the sort of freedom from commercial pressures that you just don't get anywhere else in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Cutteslowe Chris on Sept 16, 2010 13:53:55 GMT
I do think the BBC is a valuable service, but the license fee should be scrapped and the BBC funded through ordinary tax. I'd be happy to pay the extra. The idea of needing a "license" to operate a TV is quite frankly ridiculous! and radio and computer,you can't run anything without the rip off licence  |
|
|
|
Post by Simon Lill on Sept 16, 2010 14:07:43 GMT
Do I have the option to turn the BBC off on my Sky? No. Do I have the ability to block BBC radio stations? No. Yet if I want to ONLY watch commercial TV and listen to commercial radio I still have to pay for a license.
The simple fact is it's a tax against owning a TV whereby the monies generated from it in no way go towards commercial TV and only appear to line the pockets of the BBC, which is fine if we were given the choice to not 'watch' it and not pay for it.
People moan about Sky being a rip off, at least they charge you for something you want and use.
The sooner they get rid of the license and start charging you to watch the BBC the better. It'll save me £140 a year!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Otto on Sept 16, 2010 14:28:05 GMT
I do think the BBC is a valuable service, but the license fee should be scrapped and the BBC funded through ordinary tax. I'd be happy to pay the extra. The idea of needing a "license" to operate a TV is quite frankly ridiculous! Hang on, what? You want the cost of the BBC to be spread over everyone, regardless of whether they have a TV or not? Surely it's vastly fairer the way it is - basically a TV tax for all who have a TV. Personally I'm more than happy to pay the 12 quid a month or whatever it is to maintain the BBC. It gives us some of the highest quality and definitely the most varied range of TV programming anywhere in the world. It gives us some of the best radio stations in the world, playing the sort of eclectic mix of music you just don't find on mainstream radio stations anywhere else. The combination of the above two go along way towards giving opportunities to British actors/musicians/writers/producers etc. to hone their abilities, and keeps British talent at the forefront globally. We also have probably the best and certainly one of the most ubiquitous global news services. And it means we don't have any advertising. Honestly, comparing to what I've seen of other countries' TV & radio - ours is just flat out better. And a lot of that is because the licence fee gives the people who make it the sort of freedom from commercial pressures that you just don't get anywhere else in the world. What about if they chose to advertise hence allowing us all to pay less? Would it really impact on the quality. I can assure you that Sky and ITV advertise and at no time do any advertisers ask them to amend a news story as a result. It would just mean a few banners on their websites and a few breaks in between the dirge of Eastenders and other sorrowful trash. Coast is about the only BBC programme I watch. Is it worth £140. Erm... |
|
|
|
Post by Simon Lill on Sept 16, 2010 14:41:10 GMT
Hang on, what? You want the cost of the BBC to be spread over everyone, regardless of whether they have a TV or not? Surely it's vastly fairer the way it is - basically a TV tax for all who have a TV. Personally I'm more than happy to pay the 12 quid a month or whatever it is to maintain the BBC. It gives us some of the highest quality and definitely the most varied range of TV programming anywhere in the world. It gives us some of the best radio stations in the world, playing the sort of eclectic mix of music you just don't find on mainstream radio stations anywhere else. The combination of the above two go along way towards giving opportunities to British actors/musicians/writers/producers etc. to hone their abilities, and keeps British talent at the forefront globally. We also have probably the best and certainly one of the most ubiquitous global news services. And it means we don't have any advertising. Honestly, comparing to what I've seen of other countries' TV & radio - ours is just flat out better. And a lot of that is because the licence fee gives the people who make it the sort of freedom from commercial pressures that you just don't get anywhere else in the world. What about if they chose to advertise hence allowing us all to pay less? Would it really impact on the quality. I can assure you that Sky and ITV advertise and at no time do any advertisers ask them to amend a news story as a result. It would just mean a few banners on their websites and a few breaks in between the dirge of Eastenders and other sorrowful trash. Coast is about the only BBC programme I watch. Is it worth £140. Erm... Agreed! The BBC lags behind Sky on so many levels. Movies, sport, news, entertainment, music...you name it. Sure I watch Top Gear and MOTD but would I continue to pay £13 a month to watch them if given the choice? Absolutely not. |
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Sept 16, 2010 14:50:00 GMT
Agreed! The BBC lags behind Sky on so many levels. Movies, sport, news, entertainment, music...you name it. Music? Don't think so. What music is ever shown on Sky? BBC coverage of Glastonbury and Reading/Leeds is good, just wish they would show V as well instead of C4 (a commercial station) who just show highlights of the current pop chart favourites and only the top hits of established artists. And of course you have Later as well which is arguably the best music show currently on any channel. |
|
|
|
Post by Simon Lill on Sept 16, 2010 14:52:56 GMT
Agreed! The BBC lags behind Sky on so many levels. Movies, sport, news, entertainment, music...you name it. Music? Don't think so. What music is ever shown on Sky? BBC coverage of Glastonbury and Reading/Leeds is good, just wish they would show V as well instead of C4 (a commercial station) who just show highlights of the current pop chart favourites and only the top hits of established artists. And of course you have Later as well which is arguably the best music show currently on any channel. Well MTV for starters plus a long list of other 24/7 dedicated music channels. Guess this comes down to personal musical preference. Besides I don't pay for the music package with Sky....which is my point. |
|
|
|
Post by peterdevo on Sept 16, 2010 15:55:28 GMT
I see Capita are advertising for collectors. They are employed for around £23750pa to collect unpaid licence fines
I am surprised that they haven't thought about wheel clamping evaders
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony W on Sept 16, 2010 18:24:43 GMT
What about if they chose to advertise hence allowing us all to pay less? Would it really impact on the quality. I can assure you that Sky and ITV advertise and at no time do any advertisers ask them to amend a news story as a result. It would just mean a few banners on their websites and a few breaks in between the dirge of Eastenders and other sorrowful trash. Coast is about the only BBC programme I watch. Is it worth £140. Erm... Because what will then happen here is exactly what happens in every other country in the world which relies on commercial TV funding (which, as far as I know, is every other country). The amount advertisers pay is directly related to how many people are watching the programme. Which is fair enough - that's just market economics. The BBC can't sell advertising at the same rate for every programme they show - world doesn't work like that. So in order to maintain a decent level of funding, the BBC has to schedule more popularist programming. Which means more Eastenders, more Strictly Come Dancing etc. etc. whilst cutting TV which doesn't get high ratings regardless of quality, and regardless of maintaining the variety of telly we have now. Meanwhile, Radios 1&2 have to stop airing shows that promote innovative, exciting new UK bands - because they don't tend to bring in huge numbers of listeners - and instead start playing manufactured pop all the time to maintain the largest possible audience and placate advertisers. Is the TV licence fair? Probably not. But it does provide variety and opportunities for talented people that you just don't get under a purely commercial system..... |
|
|
|
Post by amarillo on Sept 16, 2010 18:27:58 GMT
Hang on, what? You want the cost of the BBC to be spread over everyone, regardless of whether they have a TV or not? Surely it's vastly fairer the way it is - basically a TV tax for all who have a TV. Personally I'm more than happy to pay the 12 quid a month or whatever it is to maintain the BBC. It gives us some of the highest quality and definitely the most varied range of TV programming anywhere in the world. It gives us some of the best radio stations in the world, playing the sort of eclectic mix of music you just don't find on mainstream radio stations anywhere else. The combination of the above two go along way towards giving opportunities to British actors/musicians/writers/producers etc. to hone their abilities, and keeps British talent at the forefront globally. We also have probably the best and certainly one of the most ubiquitous global news services. And it means we don't have any advertising. Honestly, comparing to what I've seen of other countries' TV & radio - ours is just flat out better. And a lot of that is because the licence fee gives the people who make it the sort of freedom from commercial pressures that you just don't get anywhere else in the world. But it amounts to the same thing. There cannot be many people who don't use any BBC services - TV, radio, website And in any case, loads of things are paid for in taxes that not everyone uses. The BBC as you say provides a great service to the country as a whole, so I see no reason why it shouldn't come out of income tax. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony W on Sept 16, 2010 18:41:40 GMT
And while I'm on my soapbox - the example Ste brings up is a great one.
Later has had pretty shoddy viewing figures throughout its run. They thought about axing it in 2000 as a result but didn't because the BBC is in a unique position to consider quality not just quantity. If the BBC were a commercial station, it would have disappeared from our screens a decade ago - and how many classic musical performances would we have lost as a result? How many bands wouldn't have gotten their big break?
Amarillo - that's a valid point. Lots of taxes are indeed for services that are used disproportionately.
But just because many other services don't directly tax the end user, does that really mean we should add another one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon Lill on Sept 16, 2010 19:01:20 GMT
Hang on, what? You want the cost of the BBC to be spread over everyone, regardless of whether they have a TV or not? Surely it's vastly fairer the way it is - basically a TV tax for all who have a TV. Personally I'm more than happy to pay the 12 quid a month or whatever it is to maintain the BBC. It gives us some of the highest quality and definitely the most varied range of TV programming anywhere in the world. It gives us some of the best radio stations in the world, playing the sort of eclectic mix of music you just don't find on mainstream radio stations anywhere else. The combination of the above two go along way towards giving opportunities to British actors/musicians/writers/producers etc. to hone their abilities, and keeps British talent at the forefront globally. We also have probably the best and certainly one of the most ubiquitous global news services. And it means we don't have any advertising. Honestly, comparing to what I've seen of other countries' TV & radio - ours is just flat out better. And a lot of that is because the licence fee gives the people who make it the sort of freedom from commercial pressures that you just don't get anywhere else in the world. But it amounts to the same thing. There cannot be many people who don't use any BBC services - TV, radio, website And in any case, loads of things are paid for in taxes that not everyone uses. The BBC as you say provides a great service to the country as a whole, so I see no reason why it shouldn't come out of income tax. Maybe I'm being naive but what services does it provide to the country that isn't also provided by alternative suppliers? Tv, radio, journalism, web services. All of these things are provided in various guises by a multitude of alternative suppliers. Sure, 30 years ago you could argue that the people needed to help fund the single source of these services, the BBC, but as with everything in life these days we are able to chose alternative suppliers and providors that offer the same, and in many cases superior, products. I don't need the BBC for tv, news, journalism, sport, radio and in the age of new media I need them even less for web-based socialising and information gathering. The license should be binned, plain and simple, and the services the BBC offer should be paid for. TV can be restricted in the digital era and websites can demand you pay subscriptions. The only difficult one I can see is restricting radio, but DAB or some equivalent will one day be mainstream. For now, simply add extra tax to the radio purchase. I own a TV but barely use the BBC. If I had the choice to not pay £140 a year for BBC services I would happily make the saving and you know, I wouldn't miss a single aspect of the BBC because I either don't currently use it or can source a similar and maybe superior product from someone else. I'm happy to be proved wrong here so someone give me one example of something the BBC offers that I can't either lose without any impact to me or find from an alternative providor. |
|
