Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

to think the tv licence should be made subscription only, especially in light off all the scandals at the BBC?

(107 Posts)
ophelia275 Sat 06-Oct-12 09:55:12

I know there are a lot of people who think the tv tax licence is good value for money but I think people should have a choice and I really think it is time it should be a subscription service and those that want to watch BBC/other channels funded by the licence, can choose to subscribe to it, rather than everyone being forced to pay £145 a year. I don't watch much BBC etc and would be happy to forgo it altogether.

There is definitely the technology for BBC/other channels to be scrambled so that those that are not paying the tax subscription cannot receive endless repeats of Only Fools and Horses its programs. I feel this particularly strongly now with all the corruption ("celebrities" being paid in such a way to avoid tax) and complicity in sexual abuse (Jimmy Saville). I don't want to be forced to pay towards these kind of things. If the BBC is so great then it will naturally attract lots of subscribers and stand up on its own two feet. If not, oh well, such is life.

MrsKeithRichards Mon 08-Oct-12 20:50:44

Tell you what the license fee has been justified in this house after Andrew Marr's history of the world thing.

It's shit like that BBC do well. Sure you get stuff on History and Discovery but they are over dramatic with naff voice overs and cheap graphics.

IKnowItsMyFaultBut Sun 07-Oct-12 13:48:11
IKnowItsMyFaultBut Sun 07-Oct-12 13:47:55

If it ain't broke....

Viewing figures by channel [http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weekly-viewing]

IKnowItsMyFaultBut Sun 07-Oct-12 13:46:19

Regardless of the moral arguments about stealth taxes choice etc, the BBC produces by far the best and most popular content. It still gets the highest viewing figures even now.

I'm a practical person, I'm more interests in the ends than the means. The BBC produces great stuff (not just tele, but radio, a good website, several symphony orchestras and probably other stuff too) and for that reason alone it should remain as it is.

Echocave Sun 07-Oct-12 13:41:35

I'm a bit torn on this one. On one hand YANBU in principle because the licence fee seems anachronistic (I'm not commenting on criminal or questionable activities by presenters) but otoh, the BBC has a service remit to provide certain types of programming that commercial stations don't. As a result, there is a wider choice.

In fact, picturing a world in which the only TV available was Dog The Bounty Hunter on subscription (shudder), I suppose I'm saying YABU. But I'm glad the BBC has been prevented from increasing the fee every year for a while because it's bloody expensive.

moonstorm Sun 07-Oct-12 12:46:13

If they didn't have to pay the licence fee, then maybe they could spend it on something else (or Sky/ Virgin)

ohforfoxsake Sun 07-Oct-12 12:35:05

I'm happy to subsidise other people's viewing.

If it was that or nothing, if it meant everyone got to benefit, then gladly.

Much rather do that than line murdoch's pocket.

moonstorm Sun 07-Oct-12 12:28:24

What Toombs said.

Toombs Sun 07-Oct-12 12:08:58

It's value for money if you want to watch it, it's not value for money if you don't. Given that it's funded by forcibly extracting money on pain of fines or imprisonment I don't think it's value for money. If you want it you pay for it, why should people who don't want it be forced to subsidise your viewing?

ohforfoxsake Sun 07-Oct-12 11:55:10

BBC Children's is infinitely better than anything you get on Sky.

I personally hate paying Murdoch huge amounts of money each year so my family can watch the Sport they love. But I suck it up because the BBC cannot afford to bid for the outrageous amounts that sky do as a commercial concern. I don't think we should be forced to pay to see our teams football matches. Channel 4 did a great job on the Paralympics, but the adverts were a PITA, ITV have cocked up many times with live sport and badly placed ad breaks.

for value for money, the BBC wins hands down. There's a lot I don't like about it, but thats not about programming and at the end of the day we are very lucky that it continues to produce great quality stuff on TV, Radio, iPlayer, red button, World Service, etc etc.

Toombs Sun 07-Oct-12 11:54:55

No you don't, the TV can be completely functional. You do not need to modify it at all. Having the capability is not enough, to require a TV licence you actually have to watch broadcast TV.

Sorry should have been more specific. As long as the tv has no way of recieving a tv signal then you dont need to pay a licence.
fox I dont watch any tv, i dont get the time. However, i have 3 children who do so we have sky for the kids tv. If i want to watch something i watch it online.

lljkk Sun 07-Oct-12 11:43:56

YABU.

BertieBotts Sun 07-Oct-12 11:42:54

No you don't Slutty. You can have a TV without a licence as long as you're not using it to watch TV as it's being broadcast. I have one for the playstation and as a second monitor for the PC - I've disconnected the aerial though.

ohforfoxsake Sun 07-Oct-12 11:40:51

You want to watch programmes made by the BBC in iPlayer but not pay for the programmes to be made?

If i was to get rid of my tv and just watch on demand programs then i wouldnt need to pay the licence fee even if i only ever watched bbc iplayer but because i have a tv in my house i need to pay the fee. So basically its the owning a tv that you are paying for and not the bbc services

moonstorm Sun 07-Oct-12 11:30:38

The advert thing is where dh and I disagree about opting in to watch the BBC. I'm sure the BBC could place adverts only between programmes and not during as their USP.

You could pay my licence fee for me grin

adeucalione Sun 07-Oct-12 11:09:15

Yes they could be like Sky or Virgin, where programmes are only made if they're likely to be profitable, where unpopular series' aren't shown to their conclusion and where there's 15mins of adverts in every hour despite the fact viewers are paying £30pm for the privilege.

I'd like to pay my licence fee twice and never watch another advert in my life.

moonstorm Sun 07-Oct-12 10:25:48

YANBU It would be so easy ('easy' - they would be able to do it, might be hard - but not impossible).

They could be like Sky/ Virgin etc. I want to be able to boycott it if I see fit. I would miss some radio, but that's about it.

Toombs Sun 07-Oct-12 10:20:45

That is of course your opinion and you are entitled to it, I on the other hand regard the BBC as a wasteful plague that can only finance itself by forcing people to pay for it whether they want to or not. I have never in my adult life had a TV licence, I refuse to prop up this biased criminal organisation.

They even got someone who is completely innocent convicted, see here:

http://www.thisistamworth.co.uk/horror-court-listing/story-17041156-detail/story.html

scandy Sun 07-Oct-12 09:08:22

Yes it is perfectly legal to watch recorded shows without a license, but someone still has to pay for those shows to be made. At the moment, those of us who pay our license fee finance the creation of the shows that you catch up with on iplayer. Sure, it could be advert financed, then we'd get a BBC of the same standard as the commercial channels. At the moment we have a political majority in this country who believe there should be a public service alternative, and a majority of people seem to think that is a good thing. That is the point of a democracy, there are lots of political decisions where you can't opt in our out, because it would be impossible to run the country if everyone got to choose every individual aspect of society according to their needs. I never use libraries, for example, but I agree they are important and don't mind my taxes being spent on them. On the other hand, I think public service radio and television is hugely important, and the BBC does an amazing job unrivalled by any other broadcasting company in the world. We should be incredibly proud of it.

BeyondLimitsOfTheLivingDead Sun 07-Oct-12 06:11:05

Scandy, only QI and rarely newsnight. But I could live without both.
Not particularly interested in most sport, or anything monarchy related. Nor Saturday night voting shows.

BeyondLimitsOfTheLivingDead Sun 07-Oct-12 06:08:09

Im with stuntgirl, i cancelled mine because I was already paying for netflix and never watching tv. I do use iplayer (rarely- its much slower than netflix), but if I had to pay for it, I'd just go without.
My mum has a digital recorder, she could just record dr who for me wink

And those just watching cbeebies - netflix has a kids programmes only section, so I put that on for DS1 and he chooses what he wants to watch (Means I sometimes have to put up with bloody dora, but at least no justin fletcher!!)

Toombs Sun 07-Oct-12 01:35:31

As long as its not live it's perfectly legal to watch without a tv licence.

scandy Sun 07-Oct-12 01:12:32

All the people who claim they never watch the BBC make me laugh. Olympics, Wimbledon, Proms, Newsnight, Strictly, Diamond Jubilee, QI, the Royal Wedding, the Queen's Speech... No, never watched any of those?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now