How do YOU think the BBC should be paid for? Watch

Poll: How should the BBC be paid for?
Through buying a TV licence (114)
41.16%
Through the BBC carrying adverts (78)
28.16%
Through a tax on people’s incomes (27)
9.75%
Via a subscription to BBC services (54)
19.49%
Other (please specify in thread) (4)
1.44%
Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
BBC is currently funded through the license fee. do you think this is fair?

Would it be better it we just had adverts like other channels? Then it could be free.

How about a flat tax on everyone?

Or maybe a subscription to the services on a monthly basis like Netflix etc?

Or another way?

Find more talking points about the BBC and have your say on its future
0
reply
Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#2
I would rather it be funded via adverts personally. I have little money and don't like spending my money. i'd much rather watch 3 minutes of adverts in the middle of each show instead of paying.

Although i say this the adverts are a great time to run off for a piss/grab a drink anyway.
4
reply
Huskaris
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I completely disagree with the fact that if you have a TV and want to receive terrestrial TV, you should have to have a TV licence.

You should have the option to scramble the BBC channels rather than pay.

Although to be honest, I think they should be run commercially, the idea behind the licence fee is that the BBC makes shows which are not economically viable for a commercially run station to produce.

These days that is not the case, they see talent shows on ITV, and copy them, they are more than commercially viable these days, and should have to be funded as such.
3
reply
Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Huskaris)
I completely disagree with the fact that if you have a TV and want to receive terrestrial TV, you should have to have a TV licence.

You should have the option to scramble the BBC channels rather than pay.

Although to be honest, I think they should be run commercially, the idea behind the licence fee is that the BBC makes shows which are not economically viable for a commercially run station to produce.

These days that is not the case, they see talent shows on ITV, and copy them, they are more than commercially viable these days, and should have to be funded as such.
I agree with this tbh. I own a terrestial TV and use it to watch live Tv but due to having to use a terrible indoor aerial i can't actually recieve any BBC channels. But by law i should still be paying for a TV license...

Shows like top gear are so popular they could easily sell out the advert slots in it for premium rates.
0
reply
Huskaris
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Motorbiker)
I agree with this tbh. I own a terrestial TV and use it to watch live Tv but due to having to use a terrible indoor aerial i can't actually recieve any BBC channels. But by law i should still be paying for a TV license...

Shows like top gear are so popular they could easily sell out the advert slots in it for premium rates.
Precisely! The licence fee is there in my opinion to fund things such as BBC4 and BBC Three, although these are the kind of channels which are constantly under threat. The commercially unviable shows...

But the fact is that they are focusing on making exceptionally popular shows. So let me ask anyone this, given the fact that the BBC is not using the licence fee to make shows which it could not fund through advertising, why are we paying a licence fee when they could be using advertising?

I just don't get it.
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
Adverts would mean 20 minute episodes instead of 30 minutes, which is one of the reason why BBC productions are better in my opinion.

Just find it through direct taxation, get rid of the TV licence as the system is clearly flawed.
2
reply
Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Huskaris)
Precisely! The licence fee is there in my opinion to fund things such as BBC4 and BBC Three, although these are the kind of channels which are constantly under threat. The commercially unviable shows...

But the fact is that they are focusing on making exceptionally popular shows. So let me ask anyone this, given the fact that the BBC is not using the licence fee to make shows which it could not fund through advertising, why are we paying a licence fee when they could be using advertising?

I just don't get it.
Tbh BBC3 is where all the popular shows i watch are. I have to watch them on iplayer but stuff like Sun, Sex and suspicious parents etc are good to watch and i think commercially popular enough to sell ad slots in.

Because "It's tradition" I would assume.
0
reply
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Motorbiker)
I agree with this tbh. I own a terrestial TV and use it to watch live Tv but due to having to use a terrible indoor aerial i can't actually recieve any BBC channels. But by law i should still be paying for a TV license...

Shows like top gear are so popular they could easily sell out the advert slots in it for premium rates.
What I find annoying is the fact that if you get a small TV that's only ever going to be used as a computer screen you still have to pay the TV licence!!:mad:

As for the OP, I'm debating between adverts and a subscription.
3
reply
Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Swanbow)
Adverts would mean 20 minute episodes instead of 30 minutes, which is one of the reason why BBC productions are better in my opinion.

Just find it through direct taxation, get rid of the TV licence as the system is clearly flawed.

Or they are 40 minute timeslots with 10 minutes of adverts. This happens on some other channels like Dave when they show BBC shows.

Is Direct taxation fair on everyone that doesn't have a tv or doesn't want to watch BBC?
1
reply
Huskaris
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Motorbiker)
Tbh BBC3 is where all the popular shows i watch are. I have to watch them on iplayer but stuff like Sun, Sex and suspicious parents etc are good to watch and i think commercially popular enough to sell ad slots in.

Because "It's tradition" I would assume.
I agree, it is also probably my favourite BBC Channel, but it was one that they were talking about axing recently... Lets not forget huge shows like Little Britain started there... It is effectively the BBC equivalent of E4, and that seems to do ok.

Tradition pretty much sums it up. £145.50 a year for tradition... Haha
0
reply
Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Andy98)
What I find annoying is the fact that if you get a small TV that's only ever going to be used as a computer screen you still have to pay the TV licence!!:mad:

As for the OP, I'm debating between adverts and a subscription.

You don't need to. I've had this before and unless you want to use it to watch live TV you don't need a license.

Check out an Awesome FAQ.
1
reply
Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Huskaris)
I agree, it is also probably my favourite BBC Channel, but it was one that they were talking about axing recently... Lets not forget huge shows like Little Britain started there... It is effectively the BBC equivalent of E4, and that seems to do ok.

Tradition pretty much sums it up. £145.50 a year for tradition... Haha
Didn't they cut down it's hours recently to only evenings to save money? It's the most popular channel amongst young people and students and they don't seem to care about us...

Traditions are expensive! Just look at the royal family. (Taking my own thread off topic, going to card myself in a sec)
0
reply
stargirl63
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
I would like adverts in between as every other channel does this - I don't understand why BBC need to be funded differently?

Either that, or subscription similar to Netflix as such - that way, people who don't get signal, don't watch BBC etc are not obligated to pay for it.
1
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Motorbiker)
Or they are 40 minute timeslots with 10 minutes of adverts. This happens on some other channels like Dave when they show BBC shows.

Is Direct taxation fair on everyone that doesn't have a tv or doesn't want to watch BBC?
Still means less time for programming, which would be a shame.

I don't think it is fair, but then again neither is funding nuclear weapons through direct taxation, at least the BBC provide a service which benefits most people. A possible solution to funding could be to use overseas sales of BBC productions to subsidies themselves, and pass on the savings to the taxpayer.
0
reply
She-Ra
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
I am a traditionalist when it comes to TV - the BBC is "Britain"...... it's not hard to get nostalgic about it, it's a big part of our culture for me. I'm definitely not a fan of adverts, I watch most things on record so I can fast forward commercial breaks. A tax isn't all that fair given some people do not have televisions and unlike the NHS this really isn't a "life or death" situation.

I genuinely groan when my yearly TV licence email comes through.... £100 straight out the account just before Christmas! Ouch! It seems like a lot of money at the time.

It's frustrating that I choose to have a TV but my neighbour next door could plug in their tablet into a screen and watch iplayer for free... with a 30 minute delay to live programming!

Another subscription service would turn me off - I already pay for virgin media and netflix and with that comes all the catch up channels. If that's the way it has to go ould the BBC work with providers such as Sky, Virgin Media and BT to build in the charge into the monthly/yearly cost of their packages like sky sports or netflix?
2
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
I'd hate the idea of adverts personally.

But the corporation makes many hundreds of millions from selling the rights to shows like TopGear, Strictly Come Dancing and Doctor Who all over the world, the first two are among the most watched television shows globally. The BBC just needs to use the money from that more sensibly. Cut down the dross that it doesn't need.
0
reply
Motorbiker
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by stargirl63)
I would like adverts in between as every other channel does this - I don't understand why BBC need to be funded differently?

Either that, or subscription similar to Netflix as such - that way, people who don't get signal, don't watch BBC etc are not obligated to pay for it.
Same. :five:

Quick related question, If BBC was funded through a subscription service of say £9.99 a month. Would you pay for it to get access to iplayer/BBC TV etc?

(Original post by Swanbow)
Still means less time for programming, which would be a shame.

I don't think it is fair, but then again neither is funding nuclear weapons through direct taxation, at least the BBC provide a service which benefits most people. A possible solution to funding could be to use overseas sales of BBC productions to subsidies themselves, and pass on the savings to the taxpayer.
Yea but maybe use the increased money to have more channels so the same amount in total?

I hear Top Gear selling overseas makes millions each year. Add in Doctor Who and others and we should be able to get BBC for free soon.

Do you know where that money currently goes? Is that not included in the BBC budget already?
1
reply
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Motorbiker)
You don't need to. I've had this before and unless you want to use it to watch live TV you don't need a license.

Check out an Awesome FAQ.
GODDAMN YOU SAINSBURY'S!!!!!:damnmate:
0
reply
Huskaris
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Motorbiker)
Didn't they cut down it's hours recently to only evenings to save money? It's the most popular channel amongst young people and students and they don't seem to care about us...

Traditions are expensive! Just look at the royal family. (Taking my own thread off topic, going to card myself in a sec)
Good god... You have a sense of humour too! :love:

Yeah exactly, traditions can be very very costly, also people don't like seeing big institutions reformed because they believe that reform means that it would completely disappear.
1
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Motorbiker)

Yea but maybe use the increased money to have more channels so the same amount in total?

I hear Top Gear selling overseas makes millions each year. Add in Doctor Who and others and we should be able to get BBC for free soon.

Do you know where that money currently goes? Is that not included in the BBC budget already?
More channels would be good. I still wish the BBC would run a classics channel, showing re-runs of older shows like UKTV Gold.

Aye, the BBC make a fortune through their programming. It most likely does, but I can guarantee you it will never equate to a reduction in the licence fee :lol:
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (147)
17.65%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (74)
8.88%
No I am happy with my course choice (491)
58.94%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (121)
14.53%

Watched Threads

View All