Should the government scrap the TV licence fee?
Poll
Should the TV licence be scrapped?
Today, the BBC director general Lord Hall defended the licence fee, saying it "ain't broke" and shouldn't be reformed at all.
The Culture Secretary, Sajid Javid, has other ideas and is prepared to commit to radical reform, with suggestions that the BBC could be line to run on a subscription model.
But could the BBC survive on such a model? I've posted in the University Life forum a thread where I lay out my personal grievances as a student for buying the licence.
Should the government do as Lord Hall suggests and leave the licence fee as it is, reform it (as BBC writer Armando Iannucci and Labour's Harriet Harman have suggested and make it a subscription which makes it cover iPlayer and/or the website), raise it (as many BBC stars and employers want), lower it, or scrap it altogether and privatise the UK's only state broadcaster (as supported by UKIP and the Daily Mail).
BBC writer Armando Iannucci has defended reform, Harriet Harman has said she is open to it.
The Culture Secretary, Sajid Javid, has other ideas and is prepared to commit to radical reform, with suggestions that the BBC could be line to run on a subscription model.
But could the BBC survive on such a model? I've posted in the University Life forum a thread where I lay out my personal grievances as a student for buying the licence.
Should the government do as Lord Hall suggests and leave the licence fee as it is, reform it (as BBC writer Armando Iannucci and Labour's Harriet Harman have suggested and make it a subscription which makes it cover iPlayer and/or the website), raise it (as many BBC stars and employers want), lower it, or scrap it altogether and privatise the UK's only state broadcaster (as supported by UKIP and the Daily Mail).
BBC writer Armando Iannucci has defended reform, Harriet Harman has said she is open to it.
Scroll to see replies
I voted to scrap it.
I think the BBC is a proud staple of British media, and in my own selfish way I'd like to keep it running for as long as possible.
However, I can't support holding someone at gun-point to pay for media-content, to then drag them in front of the courts if they don't comply.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10256679/TV-licence-offences-account-for-one-in-ten-UK-court-cases.html
I think the BBC is a proud staple of British media, and in my own selfish way I'd like to keep it running for as long as possible.
However, I can't support holding someone at gun-point to pay for media-content, to then drag them in front of the courts if they don't comply.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10256679/TV-licence-offences-account-for-one-in-ten-UK-court-cases.html
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ldsbabe
Yes. I NEVER watch the BBC. It's London-centric nonsense. Therefore, I dont see why I should fund it.
I wouldn't mind...but I'm sure I pay about £12 a month for my TV licence. Absolute extortion!
I wouldn't mind...but I'm sure I pay about £12 a month for my TV licence. Absolute extortion!
Isn't most of it in Salford?
I pay the £12 a month, I wouldn't really say it is good value for money, especially considering I am a) Not left wing and b) actually care about Palestinian children, meaning that most of the news content on there is of little use to me. I instead tend to do all of my watching on C4, although I do watch a fair few things on BBC catch up (which I would not need a licence for). I would back the ability to scramble your television from receiving BBC channels, meaning that you don't have to pay the fee. I for one would take this option.
Original post by Numberwang
Isn't most of it in Salford?
Nope, I actually live in Salford. You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. The BBC is so London/South centric, it completely under-serves and under represents the northern TV licence payer. Despite moving the news, CBBC and some of their Radio studios up here.
Original post by miser
I don't think it works very well as it is. I use all sorts of BBC content and don't have to pay the fee. I don't watch live TV but I use iPlayer sometimes and BBC news, weather, radio, etc.
But if it were a subscription I still wouldn't pay, I'd just stop using iPlayer.
But if it were a subscription I still wouldn't pay, I'd just stop using iPlayer.
What if not having a subscription meant you couldn't use the website?
Absolutely not. I'm going to be seen as a stuffy conservative here but I thoroughly believe that the BBC is one of the best institutions Britain has. The public adore the shows and it's the most recognised news brand around the world. Why ruin it? P.s. I cannot stand advertisements either, they make watching TV feel so cheap.
Original post by Numberwang
What if not having a subscription meant you couldn't use the website?
I probably wouldn't use that either. There are other news sources, other sources of the weather. I like the BBC but I don't think I'd go out of my way to use it if it became a paid service.
Be careful what you wish for, at 12 per month it's way, way cheaper than sky or virgin, whom are robbing everyone blind with their 'services'.
The bare minimum for sky or virgin is at least 300 quid a year and can be as high as 600 odd quid with everything added to it.
Frankly I'd rather just pay the tv licence (for which you only pay 144 quid and no extra frills for them to upsell)
Posted from TSR Mobile
The bare minimum for sky or virgin is at least 300 quid a year and can be as high as 600 odd quid with everything added to it.
Frankly I'd rather just pay the tv licence (for which you only pay 144 quid and no extra frills for them to upsell)
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by miser
I probably wouldn't use that either. There are other news sources, other sources of the weather. I like the BBC but I don't think I'd go out of my way to use it if it became a paid service.
So you're saying you think the BBC should be completely free at the point of use like the NHS? Paid for through taxation?
Original post by Numberwang
So you're saying you think the BBC should be completely free at the point of use like the NHS? Paid for through taxation?
Ah, no. I'm not saying I have any considered views on what should be done. I'm just saying how I would react. I don't know if the BBC could be run successfully on a subscription model and I don't expect everyone to react the same way to it that I would.
What you suggest is what I expect would work the best, but I avoid taking positions on things that I don't know the details on.
Original post by miser
Ah, no. I'm not saying I have any considered views on what should be done. I'm just saying how I would react. I don't know if the BBC could be run successfully on a subscription model and I don't expect everyone to react the same way to it that I would.
What you suggest is what I expect would work the best, but I avoid taking positions on things that I don't know the details on.
What you suggest is what I expect would work the best, but I avoid taking positions on things that I don't know the details on.
I see, that's OK - I just noticed your political affiliation was somewhat left-of-centre and perhaps you felt the BBC had been biased against the Greens like UKIP feel about them..
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that 20% goes to C4.
I'd sell 45% of it in return for three 20 second averts each break (so 9 an hour) as opposed to a stock market flotation. BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 (merged with another BBC channel) and BBC News would be protected. It would probably be profitable with advertisements to have a sports channel, possibly also a business news channel.
Companies holding the 45% would change every 3 years.
I'd sell 45% of it in return for three 20 second averts each break (so 9 an hour) as opposed to a stock market flotation. BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 (merged with another BBC channel) and BBC News would be protected. It would probably be profitable with advertisements to have a sports channel, possibly also a business news channel.
Companies holding the 45% would change every 3 years.
Original post by Numberwang
What if not having a subscription meant you couldn't use the website?
I'd stream illegally just like I do sports and movies. I've also never bought music having always downloaded and now streamed.
Would that mean the bbc has to start showing adverts? If so then no.
Original post by Rakas21
I'd stream illegally just like I do sports and movies. I've also never bought music having always downloaded and now streamed.
I'm always on the page and it's my most trusted source for breaking news, so I'd miss it even if I knew how to stream illegally, which I don't
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
