This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should we pay for a TV License (BBC) in the UK ?

So why should a huge majority of people in this country be forced to pay for, what you both admit to being, a 'niche' amount of prgramming which appeals to far less then would actually fund it. Sorry, but it just does not add up.

Reply 41

Icy_Mikki

13

Since the BBC has got *least* as many viewers as ITV/Channel 4/5 have got, advertisers wouldn't spend as much on the current public channels as they currently do if the Beeb started using adverts. Since ITV/Channel 4 are both struggling to get enough revenue as it is from advertising, they would probably be in very serious trouble.

Basically, I think

no license fee = less money to go around for all TV companies = worse programmes/fewer channels = bad for viewers

Reply 42

Orcas

Reue

So why should a huge majority of people in this country be forced to pay for, what you both admit to being, a 'niche' amount of prgramming which appeals to far less then would actually fund it. Sorry, but it just does not add up.

A vast majority of people do not find fantasy novels entertaining, but I think it's still reasonable for the tax payer to fund local libraries to stock them. I personally think that the ability to show children the wonders of nature / science / other that the BBC tend to do so brilliantly is something well worth a couple of quid a month. Of course arguably the majority of people want X-Factor, Big Brother, but surely preserving some factual / educational programs isn't a bad thing.

Anyway, I think for 80+ percent of people there is something they like on the BBC. I know there's loads of stuff that they do that I think is crap (but other people like), in the end they try to appeal to as many people as possible.

(Having said that I think there should be an 'opt-out' where anyone that wishes to can abstain from paying, but will not be able to access anything the BBC has been involved with on Radio / Online / TV. Sadly that's not possible, and won't happen as the BBC furthers the governments aims. Of course this could all end up with us having the same quality of TV as in the states and France... :P).

Reply 43

Roobagnall

13

artemisa

Does it matter? Do you think Mr. Smith wants to be paying for Mr. Brown's local station, when he rarely watches his own? In my county, people much prefer the independent radio stations to the local BBC one. The local BBC television station isn't immensely popular either, with headlines such as "man finds goldfish in his toilet" or whatever.

Should we have such things for the sake of it, and to please a few people?

Well if you look at the trends in local media services then they are in a rapid decline due to the plummeting prices of advertising.

So if it gets to the stage where there are no local media serivices (radio, newspapers, TV) then that would begin to harm and isolate communities.
Just to be clear, i dont think that the BBC is perfect; Personally i think that BBC3 is tosh. If the beeb close the channel and put quater of the money it saves into comedy it would far surpass the job that BBC3 is doing now anyway...

Reply 44

Dez

20

Just to clarify, you only need to pay the TV license if you own equipment which can be used to recieve a live television broadcast. You can own a television for non-live broadcasts (DVDs, games and IPTV if that ever gets it's act together) without paying. There is a concession for the elderly too. The money, as well as funding the BBC, can (and has) provide funding for other stations (C4 recieved a portion of it to switch to digital).

The BBC adds value to broadcasting, make no mistake. A lot of new technologies are pioneered there (and by Siemens), which it can release for others in the market to use without fear of losing profits, since it has none. The BBC has made a number of open-source applications available (meaning free to use, edit, copy and distribute). None of this could possibly exist if the BBC was funded privately.

On top of this, Auntie Beeb provides a platform for shows (talking both TV and radio here) that may not otherwise get aired. There's plenty of content out there, given a voice and a standing by the BBC. At least one of your favourite programs would never have seen the light of day were it not for this open attitude, I'm willing to bet.

All of that, and you also get advert-free programming thrown in the pot too. In today's commercial-driven world, that's a bit of a relief TBH. :p:

Reply 45

Jon of the North

10

The BBC is superb.
95% of the programmes I watch are on there. It's three times better then CH 4, five times better than ITV, and 10 times better than 5. They are all showers of **** tbh.

Reply 46

noggins

19

You guys.. you're living in the past

Reply 47

PC999

I wouldn't mind paying the licence fee if the quality of programming on the BBC was decent, but it's anything but so I grudge paying it.

Reply 48

265697

But noone can actually disagree that BBC channels are the most watched channel? http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyViewingSummary

Reply 49

JMonkey

3

The good thing about paying a licence is that we then get to bitch at them if they mess up and they are forced by law to listen to the shareholders. Apparently they still hate Jews though. :wink:

Reply 50

hermaphrodite

15

i

the bbc

Reply 51

cactussed

15

Reue

I shant comment any further on that then: lol

4od is far, far far far better the iPlayer in almost every sense. And it will always be. Answer me this: A company which gets it money fron the tv license fee; Why would it ever bother improving its online medium?

Whereas you have a company which relies on advertising and realises it can incorporate advertisments in it's online broadcasts and thus make them self sufficient..

Which do you really think is going to offer a better service?

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2008/11/bbc-iplayer-usage-soars-162374.jsp

"'The BBC iPlayer has radically overhauled the way viewers watch TV, taking the concept of online television from a niche pastime enjoyed by a handful of die-hard technology fans to a mainstream service used by more than a fifth of all consumers every week. In the space of a year the iPlayer has moved rapidly ahead of its rivals by constantly innovating to become the most flexible and accessible online TV service available to UK TV viewers."

:yep:

Like I said, 4oD is quite good, but cannot compare to BBC iPlayer in terms of usability and the range of programmes available.

On top of that, what programmes has Channel 4 got that can be likened to the BBC in terms of popularity? Big Brother, Hollyoaks and Countdown maybe. Correct me if I'm wrong. Whereas the BBC has The Apprentice, Little Britain, Doctor Who, Robin Hood, Eastenders, Merlin, Strictly Come Dancing, MOTD etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4560594.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6209697.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7800091.stm

And these speak for themselves. The BBC had 9 programmes in the top 10 most viewed at Christmas last year.

Reply 52

username129099

15

Its worth it just to stop the damn ads in the F1 :woo:

Reply 53

squeak

21

tbh I'd prefer to the licence fee, rather than have to sit through crap 'HAVE YOU HAD AN ACCIDENT?@?!?!?!' adverts which interrupt films and programmes every 15 minutes.

Reply 54

Ewan

15

Yes, I prefer the fact that there are no adverts. I hate the fact that on other channels, almost 15 minutes is wasted on ****** adverts, per each hour watched. Theres a reason why US series are 42 minutes when you download them online [their an hour when broadcast]

Reply 55

initiation

12

Yes we should, the BBC is an amazing broadcasting service making some quality programmes and it would be a shame to have it ruined by adverts every 15 minutes in the case of TV, the website plastered with them and radio being interrupted every 5 minutes with 'have you had an accident in the last 5 years?'.

Reply 56

JMonkey

3

I don't know what I'd do if I lived in the US, but basically the BBC goes on when the adverts are on. So there's BBC1,2,3,4, and then back to Sky. I seriously hate adverts, they used to be good but these days they aren't even trying.

Reply 57

amongsttheweeds

18

They should get rid of BBC 3 and 4; you're paying for Intermissions!

Reply 58

JMonkey

3

addylad

They should get rid of BBC 3 and 4; you're paying for Intermissions!

Nah I like the history of maths, and the documentaries too much. The BBC still has the best documentaries/natural history programmes on the box, I'd miss them being on regularly.

Reply 59

bigman_ben

11

I could live with adverts if it meant saving over £100 a year that could be better spent, theres adverts on all the other channels and theres never been uproar about them.
All I watch on BBC is the Apprentice, Top Gear (which isn't even on atm) and Match of the Day and I thing £160 or whatever a year is a rip off.
Besides that it funds rubbish local radio for old people and all sorts of other garbage tv shows like all the different (in name, not content) house and "dig through your loft and make no money on all your old s**t" programmes.
And BBC3 where their comedy is about as funny as being castrated

Should we pay for a TV License (BBC) in the UK ?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you