To think the BBC license fee should be scrapped

[Flashbangandgone]

Don't get me wrong, I love the BBC, and would pay a subscription if required, but I can't see any justification in continuing with a licence fee in the age of satellite and youtube. It's a stealth tax that needs to go.

It would be a bit like British Gas charging everyone a flat fee for using gas irrespective of how much gas they used or whether they used oil, coal or electric to hear their homes. It's bat-shit crazy anachronism and must surely go.

At the very least it could be pared down drastically from its current excesses.

The BBC isn't a 'business', though. It's a public-service broadcaster. I think I missed the memo about every aspect of society being decided by market forces :(

The BBC is one fuck of a lot more impartial than Fox News (I wonder why Murdoch wants rid of the licence fee?)...

Yes yoko the BBC has an accountability that isn't the shareholder dividend. It's a state broadcaster that is not accountable to the government. A rare and valuable thing.

YokoUhOh This member of the public doesn't want to use it and certainly doesn't want to pay for it. I also object to the strong arm techniques they use to try to get me to subsidise it. Inform, Educate and Entertain can be done with fewer channels and a much lower cost. And I still wouldn't use it.

Charlesroi perhaps as an individual you don't take advantage of BBC tv, radio, online, but surely you can see a role for a broadcaster to which the whole country has access?

If it's that important as a pubic service broadcaster, then it should be paid for out of general taxation.

But things like CBBC, the ability to watch dragons den on iplayer, the ability to print off colouring in sheets from a website and an app that tells me the weather aren't things that society needs to pay for, so why do we have to pay for them in pretty much the same way as we pay tax?

If the public service they provide is that important, then we should all pay through normal taxation for one, single, rolling news channel that could maybe be extended to radio.

The rest of it is entertainment that should be paid for.

It made a lot of sense to have a TV license in the days when having a TV was a luxury which could only be afforded by a few. Now that everyone and their dog has one, it should be funded from general taxation.

(sorry, I mean, without advertising, vested interests, Murdoch etc.)

Taxation might be an answer, but then surely its impartiality would be compromised, because the government of the day could make the BBC do its bidding.

Who on this thread is suggesting BBC should be scrapped/ is being scrapped Charleroi? The licence fee is now for TV only . I think it used to be for radio and another for TV. But that changed years ago. Now it is a fee for watching live TV and it CONTRIBUTES to the costs of running the BBC as a whole. Just like the tax most people call 'car tax' contributes towards the cost if mani gaining the national highway networks ( haha). I don't mind paying it some people do. I don't mind paying my car tax and NI and other taxes. But I'm a socialist

But it's impartiality isn't all that great to start with, and holding it up as this independent beacon of journalistic excellence makes it more dangerous than the Murdoch led media.

YokoUhOh There are channels - ITV, 4 and ch 5 are free to air (although, sadly, not free to watch).
There used to be a need for the BBC when it was the only company. Now there really isn't a need. By all means keep it, but it's really got to stand on its own two feet. Loads of people value the Beeb and would gladly pay more for it so that shouldn't be a problem, right?

But it wouldn't be the BBC if it wasn't crowdfunded by the nation! It would be Sky. And I don't buy the insidious implication that the BBC is a hotbed of lefty lunacy. That's another of Murdoch's lies.

I think the BBC in its current incarnation is going to be dismantled bit by bit, starting with the licence fee. We've seen a few announcements recently which point that way.

And again we punish the company that built the infrastructure by letting commercial companies use it for profit and then complain when profitability means they skimp on maintenance and coverage.

This member of the public doesn't want to use it and certainly doesn't want to pay for it.

Yeah, but most of us feel like that about a great many public services. It's only the (much more transparent, much less subject to political pressure) funding model that makes this one any different.

GiddyOnZackHunt If by infrastructure you mean the transmitters then surely they are already paid for? I think the BBC now pay rent to use them, just like all the other broadcasters.

What implication that it's a hotbed of lefty lunacy? If you're referring to my posts, I was thinking more of the extreme pro Israel bias they show in the reporting of events in Palestine, of which there is plenty of coverage if you choose to look for it.

I think most of us could live quite successfully with all the information we need without the BBC. It is wrong that we are forced into paying for it if we don't want the service.

JassyRadlett It's not an essential public service. It's not going to look after me when I'm sick or hungry or homeless. I won't suffer if I can't watch soaps, talent shows or Homes Under the Hammer. Quite the opposite.

YABU

And again we punish the company that built the infrastructure by letting commercial companies use it for profit and then complain when profitability means they skimp on maintenance and coverage..

No ones arguing anyone should be punished.... Just that the BBC shouldn't be funded in a particularly regressive flat-rate manner! We tried it with local taxation once (I.e. Poll tax).... It's little different really.

I don't own a TV for this very reason on principle. I mainly think the BBC produce a load of rubbish anyway, and why should I be forced to pay them annually with threats? The TV licensing people simply couldn't believe I didn't own a TV or watch live TV so they kept sending hounding nastier letters despite repeatedly declaring no TV using their forms etc. How much money does TV licence enforcement cost anyway? Why should we all be held to ransom? what about very vulnerable people, or people who cannot afford it but probably could do with watching TV? no internet connected for instance, isolated .Why should they be forced to hand over money to the BBC? when they may not ever watch a BBC program at all because it's all a load of cr*p? and to fund something they have no control over?
It's not post WW2 1940s any more and it's completely inappropriate now.

Scrap it!

It's not an essential public service.

Neither are a great many of the things paid for from public funds.

And having lived in countries both with and without public broadcasters, I think it's a fairly valuable public service - much more than many paid for from general taxation.

If the licence fee is scrapped, the quality of programming will go down. This will also impact on everyone who watches shows on iplayer.

And commercial channels rarely produce any good shows. They churn out shows and films that others have made.

And when I was in the US for sometime, I realised just how important the BBC was.

Charles the transmitters are now funded by the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 plus a holding company. However the land purchases etc to have those transmitters were in many cases done by the BBC. While charters are held by the BBC and Channel 4 then there is a remit to provide coverage, S4C is included in that remit. ITV to a certain extent has to participate because it's outweighed by the chartered services.
Remove the charters from the BBC and you lose the impetus to provide services to huge areas of Scotland. There is little money in advertising there because of population density. Kiss goodbye to local services. Why upgrade services to Orkney? Subscription services might not be economical etc.