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.

It may not be called a licence fee, but the reality is that in many, many areas of life we are charged for things we don't want or need. That is the nature of taxation. In fact, in many countries the public service broadcaster is paid for by tax and maybe that would be the simplest solution here.

I agree... I think Core public service broadcasting funded by the taxpayer, with the BBC's independence guaranteed by charter as it is currently. The nice-to-have stuff can sink or swim in the commercial world, rather than requiring rich and poor alike to pay a flat fee for it.

Mmmmm! So one facte of your arguement, OP, is not that the Beeb is shite, but that the very cheapness of the product is offensive to you because you can afford to pay more and are incensed that even more rich people aren't means tested to pay an even higher fee?

Another is that you wish to protect the hapless single parent as they sit in their abject poverty. How kind of you!

From the weirdly scattergun blatherings I gather that here are a number of meeja types trying to whip up some reacton prior to the Beebs Royal Charter running out next year.

Maybe that's why there is no focus on the World Service, the reasons behind (and knock n effects of) the Met Office losing the contract, the changes to the AV Media Services directive and other concommitant changes that will occur should the Beeb need to be dismantled/restructured.

As it it, OPs such as this seem to ignore completely the facts that the Beeb themselves don't think the licence fee is sustainable and that they are trying to work out a new way of funding their work, preferably without resorting to adverts.

The Beebs and the government's select committee are already suggesting ppv for some services so OPs such as this seem to be a bit redundant. Shouting about things that are already under discussion. The difference is that the Beeb/select committee members appreciate the enormity of the task and are suggesting a longer timescale in order to ensure that the baby is not thrown out with the bath water.

The BBC is respected around the world - it is possibly th most respected broadcaster anywhere. My friends in the U.S. Are very jealous and many get their news from the BBC website because it is th most accurate and impartial reporting , in Their view.

Begrudging 40p/day for everything g the BBC does is knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

I do, however, think you should have to out in your licence number to access player though. The number of people on here who say they don't pay for a licence but happily watch on iplayer is outrageous.

I'm sceptical about the number of people who claim never to watch or listen to the BBC. I suspect that the reality is that the vast majority of them do, even if it is because they make an exception for Bake Off or a particular serial, or watch a particular sporting or national event that is only on the BBC, or listen to local radio or whatever.

Begrudging 40p/day for everything g the BBC does is knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

I'm not begrudging paying anything! I just want us to pay for the BBC fairly and reasonably. The current licence fee manifestly does not achieve that.

From the weirdly scattergun blatherings I gather that here are a number of meeja types trying to whip up some reacton prior to the Beebs Royal Charter running out next year.

I'm in no way whatsoever connected to the media.... But yes, my question has arisen from the Charter Review. It seems like the perfect time for a discussion!

The Beebs and the government's select committee are already suggesting ppv for some services so OPs such as this seem to be a bit redundant. Shouting about things that are already under discussion.

The fact they are discussing such things is excellent... No decisions have been made yet though which makes this a live topic for discussion. I'm really not sure why you don't believe it is given we live in a free society?

OK. But you do seem to be moaning about things that are already being discussed and have been identified as areas in need of change by the Beeb and the select committee. So I don't understand. Why not discuss some of those points in more detail, as they actually stand at this moment, rather than bemoaning things that aren't quite as your OP presents them?

There is so much information available that it just seems odd to keep going back to square one, as if no further discussions have been had and no further recommendations made by those who are tasked with updating the corporation.

which makes this a live topic for discussion. which was part of my point. It is live and changing. Your OP seems to concentrate on a position no one involved still holds. They have moved on, as has the wider debate.

I'm really not sure why you don't believe it is given we live in a free society? And I am not sure how you made that assumption. I was bemoaning your OP being out of date, not reflecting what is, not the appropriateness of the topic for public debate.

I don't like the BBC and I don't think there news reporting is impartial in the slightest. We have plenty of alternative news services to choose from. I think the fee should be scrapped and it should be switched to a subscription service for those who really want. My sky tv service is much better value for money. The only BBC show I watch is Watchdog and I think £145 a year to watch 6 episodes of a show is not great value for money. I would rather go without and those who love all the shows can pay a subscription to watch it.

Just think of the money they would save on paying enforcement officers wages. That would go towards some of the lost revenue and the rest could be made from paid advertising. They do also advertise their own shows a hell of a lot too. Back in the days I watched the breakfast show it was like one continuous advert for some upcoming BBC TV show or particular singers or musicians that the record company has paid them to put on a prime spot. That was the reason I stopped watching because I was sick of the so called ad free channel having constant adverts.

The BBC does have paid for TV advertising outside the UK. I stumbled across the BBC news 24 channel in a hotel in Germany and they had breaks for adverts.

It comes to something when an argument for making a single parent struggling in benefits pay £145 per year to watch TV is so it can fund programmes such as Top Gear, which in turn makes the BBC loads of money!

That wasn't my argument. It was in response to the suggestion that the BBC making nature documentaries is pointless because no one wants to watch them. I pointed out this was false.

By this logic Alton Towers, Madame Tussaud's, Odeon Cinemas, Frankie & Benny's etc all provide a public service....

Or the RSC, Natural History Museum, theatre companies and art galleries?

Do we say these should be funded by some kind of entertainment licence fee too?

We seem to, when talking about the arts.

Much as I like it, Bake Off isn't one of them!

Well, yet again, Bake Off and the like are major money spinners that subsidise the more 'public good' elements.

Quite important to distinguish between 'public good' and 'public service', don't you think?

It's also worth pointing out that the select committee (and for that matter any select committee) is not part of the Government. It's a function of Parliament - a committee of the Commons.

This.

I don't really see how paying out of tax is any fairer, though. You would get people who don't have TVs whinging even more. And if we're saying that it should be income related, shouldn't that apply to everything including VAT?

My sky tv service is much better value for money.

You have to be joking. Paying a subscription and still having to sit through adverts? No way.

FuckOffJeffrey, is it seriously the case that no-one in your family either watches any BBC programme apart from Watchdog, or listens to any BBC radio programme, or watches iPlayer? And I mean any BBC programme, including the one-offs like big sporting events, Royal events, Christmas programmes etc etc?

Parliament... OK. My error. I shall remember that (and not be so lazy myself, in future)

Sorry Blanche I know it comes across as really pedantic. But it colours their views quite differently as it's cross-party.

Quite important to distinguish between 'public good' and 'public service', don't you think?

I agree. As for Bake off etc being money spinners, why not hive them off into a not-for-profit making company that ploughs it's profits back into the BBC. Commercial and public service/good realms are not muddied.

Nope, not a 'meeja' type, I'm a teacher. I'd prefer to live in a country where the BBC was the main disseminator of news media, as opposed to Sky. The market shouldn't get to decide, in this case.

Or the RSC, Natural History Museum, theatre companies and art galleries? Actually, a lot of these places do have a voluntary subscription via things like "Friends of" schemes. You pay an annual fee in exchange for preferential treatment at special shows and exhibitions. Many of them charge on a pay-per-view basis too.

The BBC may be making noises about changing how they collect their funding but I haven't seen any action yet. I doubt I will, as they'd much rather everyone paid. It's much easier than making a product at the right price that everyone would willingly pay for.
And I still don't see why I have to have a licence to use a television.

Oh, sorry Jesse! I was being sincere, am often quite the pedant myself

Had I taken an extra minute I would have added that being cross party only added to the problem I had with the OP.

why not hive them off into a not-for-profit making company that ploughs it's profits back into the BBC. But that is, in effect, what currently happens!

Charlesroi, as I said earlier, they have acknowledged that, accepted that changes need to be made. But they have a very long timescale, about decade.

And you don't pay to use your television. Also, it isn't easy to make a product that everyone would willingly pay for - name one! If you think the Beeb is taking the easy option make a sensible suggestion. There are good reasons to have a non commercial broadcaster. Be careful you don't join those throwing the baby out with the bath water. A short trip to America will give you a taste f the probable outcome.

Actually, a lot of these places do have a voluntary subscription via things like "Friends of" schemes. You pay an annual fee in exchange for preferential treatment at special shows and exhibitions. Many of them charge on a pay-per-view basis too.

That doesn't alter the funding model for the core offering - demonstrating that public funding for arts/entertainment is not limited to the BBC.

Blanche - exactly! 20-25% of BBC revenue is generated by, er, the BBC.

If we make it a subscription service will they charge for iPlayer as well? And all the other services the BBC provides? How many people will want the licence fee abolished when they have to pay for all of those?

I am more than happy to pay for my TV licence. We watch a lot of BBC programmes - crime detective dramas on BBC4, documentaries, period dramas, comedy, sport etc. I don't care for the soaps or reality TV except for the Bake Off, but don't begrudge those that do want to watch them. And we certainly got our money's worth from CBeebies and CBBC when DD was younger.

We watch far more BBC than commercial TV and hate all the advertising to the extent that we never watch live ITV/Channel 4/5. And we don't have Sky or have any intention of getting it.

For our family the TV licence is excellent value for money so I don't want it abolished.