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.

They are discussing ppv for iPlayer. If the BBC charges then all other free catch ups will charge too.

This now seems to be inevitable, but may take a few years yet. I too am quite happy with the licence fee. I tend not to watch the weirdly voyeuristic fat/black/poor/neighbour/large family/religious programmes channles 4+5 seem to find so necessary. It depresses me that BBC3 will soon disappear, to all intents and purposes.

When those who decry the Beeb get their own way maybe more people will stand up and fight to get it back again. Or maybe they will just get rid of the telly altogether and let everyone else get on with it.

Not sure how I'd manage without the radio though!

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
Which, given other channels have managed to implement encryption and a subscription model is a bullshit timescale.

And you don't pay to use your television.
I said I don't see why I need a licence to use my television. It's 2015 for heavens sake.

Also, it isn't easy to make a product that everyone would willingly pay for - name one
Well a lot of people seem to think Sky is worth paying for - enough for it to make a decent amount of money anyway. I'm not one of those people.

If you think the Beeb is taking the easy option make a sensible suggestion
I have. Repeatedly. It's implement encryption and a subscription model. No need to pay Capita to strong arm people into coughing up, no more wasting court time, no freeloading. No money, no signal.

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.
There's no need to chuck the whole thing away, just only charge the people that want to use the service and don't prevent them watching other services. I've been to the USA and I wouldn't pay for most of that dross either.

I believe that the licence fee should be replaced by funding through general taxation. I think it is a disgrace that the poorest in society are expected to pay the same flat fee for this public service as the richest. The current system also requires an entirely separate collection system - meaning that substantial amounts of the collected money is wasted on administration.

The only arguments against changing this system as above are, I think, that it means that 'everyone' pays rather than those that watch TV, and that it would compromise the BBC's impartiality.

In answer to the first argument, I would say 'Fine - this is a public service which we pay for as a society'. In answer to the second - I do not see how a system where the amount of the BBC's funding over a period of years is decided by the government negotiating with the BBC Trust is fundamentally different, in terms of affecting impartiality, to the level of the licence fee being decided by the government negotiating with the BBC Trust, as at present.

You seem to be comparing apples and oranges though

other channels have managed to implement encryption and a subscription model is a bullshit timescale. You have missed much of the detail, it isn't about a subscription model.

I said I don't see why I need a licence to use my television. It's 2015 for heavens sake. You missed the point. Using a TV is not what you pay for.

Well a lot of people seem to think Sky is worth paying for - enough for it to make a decent amount of money anyway. I'm not one of those people. But you said everyone. I have never paid for any TV other than through the licence. And will not!

If you think the Beeb is taking the easy option make a sensible suggestion
I have. Repeatedly. It's implement encryption and a subscription model. No need to pay Capita to strong arm people into coughing up, no more wasting court time, no freeloading. No money, no signal. Happily neither the Beeb nor the select committee agree with you. There is much more to it than a subscription model.

There's no need to chuck the whole thing away, just only charge the people that want to use the service and don't prevent them watching other services. I've been to the USA and I wouldn't pay for most of that dross either I suspect it it the just that is causing the problems. It really is not a case of making the Beeb be the same as ITV or Sky. The point is that is is significantly different and needs to remain so. The question is how different and where changes need to be made.

Again, it is not just a question of changing the subscription model.

Some of us really wouldn't miss the bbc if it became Ppv or subscription based. Some of us really wouldn't care if it became a commercial venture.
Why should those of us who wouldn't care and wouldn't miss not having it continue to pay a mandatory charge of £145 per year so that we can watch live tv on other channels which are not funded by the tv licence fee?
I also never ever listen to bbc radio. I rarely listen to any radio channel as I prefer to listen to prerecorded music without interruptions from presenters but if I did put the radio on it wouldn't be the bbc.
We seem to be getting less than ever for the licence fee - they no longer have any premiership or champions league football as they allowed sky and BT to outbid them and have exclusive rights. They don't have any cricket (either live or highlights). I really don't see how they can justify not showing live sport especially when the national team is involved. They didn't even screen the Paralympics. The only sport they have left is ones that I have no interest in or could easily access elsewhere.
The drivel that they constantly broadcast is of zero interest to me. My teenager would miss dr who if we didn't have access to the bbc and I would miss the Olympics (which is only once every 4 years) but I wouldn't choose to pay £145 per year for my child to watch a few episodes of dr who and for me to enjoy a sporting event once every 4 years.

So, are the some of you who like to ppv more important than those who don't?

Is your opinion the very last word? Is there no room for debate? Must the squeaky wheel always win?

You mention all sorts of things, sport, Dr Who etc. But that isn't all the Beeb is. There is a much wider remit. If it were just a case of one channel being the same as another then there would not be a debate.

But the BBC is not simply another broadcaster. Have a google, find out for yourselves what it is that will disappear. You might change your mind a little.

But I suspect that won't happen and some people will only realise the full ramifications when it is too late.

'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.'

Not joking. I don't mind adverts and the shows I do enjoy watching are mainly on sky Atlantic or the syfy channel. I watch news on either sky news or Al Jazeera.

'is 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?'

Yes it really is. DH watches sports from streams on his cromecast. The only sporting events I watch is Olympia / HOYS and these get shown on sky sports. We don't watch anything to do with the royal family as we have zero interest in them (although I do think Zara Phillips is a very good sports person but that's based on the merits of her horse riding and nothing to do with her being a member of the royal family) I don't hate the royal family but I equally have no interest in them or what they get up to. When the royal wedding was on a few years back I arranged to go visit a friend and booked my train ticket for the time the wedding was on. Not only did I miss the entire thing but the train was nice and quiet.

We don't watch the christmas specials, Eastenders, the show about baking that everyone was going on about last year, Dr who etc. My DD didn't watch Cbeebies when she was small, she only liked Sesame Street/ Elmo's world and the wizard of Oz at that age. I did put it on for her a few times but she genuinely had no interest in any of the shows and would wander away or ask for Elmo. We actually went to an event a few months back with the Scottish chamber orchestra playing music and Chris from Cbeebies narrating a story. Afterwards she couldn't understand why people were queuing up to meet Chris and have a photo taken with him as she didn't recognise him. Similarly we went to a book reading (I don't know the woman's name but it's the presenter with half an arm - Kerry?) she was reading her new book and done signings afterwards but again my daughter didn't recognise her. (We did get our book signed and she was a really nice lady)

I have never used iplayer and my days of listening to the BBC radio ended when the John Peel show stopped.

I've also just scrolled through my planner to see what is on the BBC over the next 24 hours and there is nothing appealing apart from an old Wallace and Gromit that I already own on DVD.

Oh, and do you not see the absurdity of bemoaning the cost of the licence and that the Beeb allowed itself to be outbid for football?

So, are the some of you who like to ppv more important than those who don't?

But the people who prefer Ppv are not asking anybody else to subsidise their tv viewing or radio listening habits.

So, Jeffrey. You don't need or want to pay for a licence and so, surely, can see that you don't have any reason to have a vote/say on the matter!

Or do you subscribe to the "I don't like it so no one can have it" theory of life?

Same question to you then? Set up your household so that you can legally opt out of paying the licence and leave everyone else to it.

It is not impossible. Many people already do it.

OurBlanche - you ask if there is no room for debate. Isn't that what this thread is?

Oh, and do you not see the absurdity of bemoaning the cost of the licence and that the Beeb allowed itself to be outbid for football?

Not really because they seem to have lots of money to pay ridiculous salaries to its most popular presenters. Perhaps if they didn't waste so much money on the likes of Jeremy clarkson et al they wouldn't have been outbid on national sports coverage so easily.
The fact they have been outbid tends to suggest (to me) that the current licence fee model is insufficient in the current tv world and they need to change.
I don't want the bbc and I certainly don't want to be forced to pay for it.
I personally don't have any Ppv or subscription channels as I am happy with what little I watch of the free to view commercial channels.

Why are some people so sniffy about the BBC or TV in general?
Why do they think the BBC only provides drivel? I don't understand that with the breadth of its programming that absolutely everything they show is rubbish for those of low intellect

IMO the commercial channels provide even more drivel than the BBC.

I am realistic enough to realise that the BBC isn't only going to show the type of programmes I want to watch. It can't appeal to all of the people all of the time, and I think far too many people forget that.

There is a lot of snobbishness about TV these days. Yes some of it is drivel, some of it isn't, some of it is boring (sport), some of it is gripping. It's like life. It isn't all the same.

And I'm still happy to pay my licence. For that I get a variety of programmes uninterrupted by adverts and, for the time being, access to radio, iPlayer, BBC websites (the GCSE revision sites have been extremely useful.

I do get that people who never use the BBC might resent paying for it, but I do use it a lot and am happy to pay for it.

Not really.

There are so many issues that could/should be dicussed. But those against simply repeat that they don't like it and shouldn't be forced to pay for it. Or rewind their objections to a situation that no longer exists, given the recent statements from both BBC and the select committee.

If there is to be a debate then both sides need to know what the situation and details actually are. To do some reading and explore the depth and breadth of the situation as it actually is.

Most posters here have not done that and have not acknowledged anyone who has said as much. Just repeats of personal preferences and some weird DM style cant that bears little resemblance to the current situation.

That, as I have already explained uthred, is what I am questioning. Not the need for a debate on the subject.

Same question to you then? Set up your household so that you can legally opt out of paying the licence and leave everyone else to it.

It isn't possible to legally do that if you want to watch any non bbc channel live. I do watch commercial free to view channels so I need a tv licence even though I don't want the bbc.
I should be able to opt out of having access to bbc and I player and paying a licence fee.

To be honest, I don't mind paying my licence fee but then again I'm a fan of not only the BBC but also the principle behind it.

I think if it were to become subscription only or any other type of independent channel then it will lose what impartiality it does have. At the moment, it doesn't have an agenda other than providing services to the British public and I think that's valuable.

One of the things I most like about it is its news reporting. I was on the periphery of a large 'incident' a few years ago and in our control centre all the TV's were set to Sky because they report things as they find out (so their news output was much quicker) regardless of whether they are true or not. The Beeb was a backup because they tend to report things once they're checked. But I liked the notion that there was some kind of checks and balance before reporting. It felt more responsible.

Also, I have a friend who was involved in a public story and all the news outlets other than the BBC reported all manner of innacurate but headline grabbing 'facts'. The Beeb didn't, they kept it factual and that was invaluable to her at the time.

So personally, I'm happy to pay for that kind of reporting and I can't see any other model that would provide that without having to tailor its output to a particular audience.

"I do watch commercial free to view channels so I need a tv licence even though I don't want the bbc."

Are you anti the BBC or is there genuinely nothing at all that you ever watch on the BBC?

Anyone who does not want to watch the BBC output can opt out. Just as those who do not want to watch Sky can.

The question still stands: why shout so much about getting rid of it if you don't watch it? Just sort out your viewing arrangements so you don't have to pay for it.

But be aware that 9nce the Beeb changes its iPlayer to subscription ALL of your free to view commercial channels will disappear. Once the BBC changes its subscription there will be NO FREE TO VIEW.

Look it up... find out why...

Are you anti the BBC or is there genuinely nothing at all that you ever watch on the BBC?

I already said I watch the Olympics once every 4 years and my teen watches dr who but I could happily live without those to save myself £145 per year.

But be aware that 9nce the Beeb changes its iPlayer to subscription ALL of your free to view commercial channels will disappear. Once the BBC changes its subscription there will be NO FREE TO VIEW.

Other countries manage to have free
To view services without licence fees and there is no reason that the whole of our tv system should be held to random by the bbc and a licence fee.
Perhaps all the money saved by not bringing prosecutions on poor people for evading the tv licence could by used to support independent reporting instead of the current licence fee system.

I have been googling, but can't find any articles to support this OurBlanche

One of the things I most like about it is its news reporting. I was on the periphery of a large 'incident' a few years ago and in our control centre all the TV's were set to Sky because they report things as they find out (so their news output was much quicker)

Sky News's unofficial motto: Never wrong for long.

I would pay the licence fee simply to have an alternative to Kay Burley in rolling news coverage. That in itself is a valuable public service.

'So, Jeffrey. You don't need or want to pay for a licence and so, surely, can see that you don't have any reason to have a vote/say on the matter!'

Or do you subscribe to the "I don't like it so no one can have it" theory of life?'^

Sorry what? I have no reason to object to paying £145 a year for something I don't like, want or use?

Are you saying the only people allowed to have an opinion or a vote are people who like the BBC and do want to watch the it. I pay my fee like everyone else so I am entitled to an opinion.

I do need to pay a licence fee because I have sky and under the current rules I am forced to pay because I watch live (non BBC) broadcasting.

I don't mind people having the BBC if they choose to. If it was a subscription service then people who do want the channels could still have and pay for it- as they already do but why should I need to pay for TV I don't watch? I don't expect everyone else to pay a fee just so I can enjoy the shows and channels I like. I pay for what I want to watch. Why is that so hard to understand?

Oh well. If you say so.

I give up. It does not matter what other countries have done. The realities of the situation here and now are what matter. That you don't know what they are makes your insistence on having your cake and eating it ridiculous.

You, personally and almost immediately, can organise your household so that you won't have to pay the licence fee. Yet you choose not to.

There will be ramifications to the currently proposed changes. Currently that includes the possibility that you will lose ALL free to view broadcasts.

But as you persist in the DM style cant, I shall leave you to it.

I don't mind people having the BBC if they choose to. If it was a subscription service then people who do want the channels could still have and pay for it- as they already do but why should I need to pay for TV I don't watch? I don't expect everyone else to pay a fee just so I can enjoy the shows and channels I like. I pay for what I want to watch. Why is that so hard to understand?

Well, there's the bit where, via your Sky subscription, you're also paying for a vast amount of broadcasting you don't want to watch.