Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think the BBC license fee should be scrapped

310 replies

Flashbangandgone · 30/08/2015 22:24

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.

OP posts:
OurBlanche · 31/08/2015 11:51

Bunbaker - the licence allows the viewer to watch ALL broadcasts as they are being shown, not just the BBC, ALL channels.

The licence fee is not a subscription to watch BBC programmes but mandated by law. Under the Communications Act 2003, the BBC in its role as the licensing authority has a duty to issue TV Licences and collect the licence fee.

If the licence fee goes then it is not just the BBC that will need to be paid for. The charter requires the BBC to collect the fee for this... who will collect it after the licence fee goes?

I think this is what most people do not understand!

ConferencePear · 31/08/2015 11:56

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.

I absolutely agree with this. I don't think the BBC is perfect by any means, but I would be prepared to pay more to keep free of commercial or government interference.

Iamnotloobrushphobic · 31/08/2015 12:01

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.

But he chooses to pay for sky tv. How would you feel if you were forced to pay for sky tv but never watched it and didn't want it?
The current model means we have to have a tv licence to watch any live tv but it doesn't have to be that way.

Viviennemary · 31/08/2015 12:04

It annoys me when people are dodging paying the licence by watching on streaming or whatever they call it. They should change it so that everyone who watches BBC programmes pays the fee. That would be more sensible.

JassyRadlett · 31/08/2015 12:08

But he chooses to pay for sky tv. How would you feel if you were forced to pay for sky tv but never watched it and didn't want it?

I was simply pointing out that it was a false statement - the poster doesn't pay only for those channels required/desired. S/he pays for plenty of output not wanted.

Similarly, my taxes (including the licence fee) pay for plenty of things I don't like or want.

I agree that the licence fee is regressive, and that the mode of collection is outdated and needs looking at. But I think a publicly funded broadcaster is a public good.

wafflyversatile · 31/08/2015 12:12

No. I think it is important to have publicly funded media rather than just corporate media.

I think the government should keep their beaks out though it should not be a voice piece for the government. . I pay as much for it as David Cameron does.

OurBlanche · 31/08/2015 12:12

ALL programmes, Vivienne. Not just the BBC ones.

And soon they probably will...

FuckOffJeffrey · 31/08/2015 12:32

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.

Yes but at least I am paying that through choice. I choose to pay for these channels and I can cancel my subscription if I decide I no longer want to have access to them. I do not have that option with the BBC. If I want to watch any live tv at all (including additional channels I already pay for) I need to pay the licence fee. At least if it was a subscription service then I would have the option.

I think the real fear the supporters if the BBC have is they know a huge chunk of people would choose not to subscribe and they would end up with either a higher subscription cost, paid for advertising or have some shows cut.

You do realise that £145 is a huge amount of money for some people? For example is someone is on JSA or on a national minimum wage job then £12 a month is a lot. At least if it was a subscription service then people who find themselves out of work or struggling financially they could choose to not subscribe and save on this cost or if they see it as a worthwhile service then they can choose to subscribe and make savings elsewhere. At the moment they have no option unless they give up TV altogether which is completely unfair when there are other free channels they can watch.

Charlesroi · 31/08/2015 12:45

The current model means we have to have a tv licence to watch any live tv but it doesn't have to be that way
Exactly the law can be changed, as it has been in the past.

Viviennemary · 31/08/2015 13:00

I agree with the laws changing. After all the TV licence was brought in when you needed a TV to watch a TV programme. And this is no longer the case. So it's out-dated and doesn't fit the modern world. I agree with keeping the BBC but it does seem to waste a lot of money and is a bit left wing at the moment. Still I expect that will change when Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the labour party. Grin

OurBlanche · 31/08/2015 13:01

At the moment they have no option unless they give up TV altogether which is completely unfair when there are other free channels they can watch.

Which totally misses the point and continue to mash together 2 separate points.

And again I have to ask... what do you think will happen when/if the licence is rescinded? ALL of those 'free' channels will have to change... then what do the 'poor people' watch?

OurBlanche · 31/08/2015 13:04

After all the TV licence was brought in when you needed a TV to watch a TV programme. but is intended to allow the viewer to watch ALL broadcasts as they happen via any medium. It is the as it happens that you currently pay for. Which is how the less scrupulous avoid paying, they watch via catch up.

Now, what will happen if the licence, pay one, watch all, goes? It won't just be the BBC watchers that are affected.

FuckOffJeffrey · 31/08/2015 13:18

The other channels are already funded through advertising, the TV licence fee does not go to the other channels. They do not get subsidised by it so why would a subscription service to the BBC have an effect on the other channels that have survived this long on advertising revenue (unless you are suggesting the other channels have financial gain from the fee also?)

OurBlanche · 31/08/2015 13:25

Did you read my previous thread, the one with the quoted text in it?

The licence fee gives you permission to watch 'at the time' broadcasting. It does not fund the BBC! Yes, they do retain a % for collection but the licence itself DOES NOT PAY FOR THE BBC.

www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13

JassyRadlett · 31/08/2015 13:29

You do realise that £145 is a huge amount of money for some people?

Did you even read my post? There were only 3 paragraphs of it. I've repeatedly said on this thread that I think it's regressive and that aspect should be reformed.

overthemill · 31/08/2015 15:32

In many many areas we pay a charge ie council tax for services which we do not use. For example I believe that there are some people who do not use public libraries but they still contribute to their provision via council tax. Likewise people who don't use Education but pay a contribution in the same way. It's the same for the BBC. It's there. It's public. The public pay for it. And I am happy

Original poster
Flashbangandgone · 31/08/2015 17:51

In many many areas we pay a charge ie council tax for services which we do not use

Yes, but the council tax isn't charged at a flat rate. Even the hated poll tax had remission for those on low income. I don't get why so many people don't see the issue here! It's as though some people can only engage with the idea of the licence fee on the most superficial level, with the crass "I love the BBC, I'm happy to pay the licence fee, therefore all should have to pay it like I do."

I also don't get why so many seem to think it's the current licence fee arrangements or it's advert saturated, dumbed down dross... Nothing in between, no compromise, no debate, only the stale old argument I gave above, end of story, any else would be the end of public service broadcasting. It sometimes feels as though Auntie has created hordes of unthinking zombies through some subliminal messaging in its broadcasts programmed to defend it and it's fee to the last!

OP posts:
Original poster
Flashbangandgone · 31/08/2015 17:53

Ps my above post wasn't aimed at those that have sought to defend the licence fee per se, just those who use the crudest of arguments.

OP posts:
overthemill · 31/08/2015 17:55

Give a method for raising the same amount of income that every person who watches TV in any form in the UK would be happy with. I doubt you'd get one. People hate paying taxes. People hate paying subscriptions. I'm amazed people pay for Sky.

ElementaryMyDear · 31/08/2015 17:57

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.

I hold no brief for Jeremy Clarkson, but that really points up the weakness of this argument, given that the BBC made a very fat profit out Top Gear.

ElementaryMyDear · 31/08/2015 18:02

OP, tell me, do you object to flat rate VAT? Shouldn't you be starting threads about that?

ElementaryMyDear · 31/08/2015 18:06

I think the trouble with the subscription model is that it would spell the end of minority, quirky broadcasting. Take, for instance, the Sunday Service: for the housebound who are religious, it may be their only chance of "participating" in a church service. But you can bet that if that were subscription only, not enough people would pay to cover the costs and the broadcaster could make much more money by broadcasting something else. So that, and many programmes like it, would just disappear, and we would be left with a sea of bland, safe programming.

longfingernails · 31/08/2015 18:07

Scrap the BBC, but do it gradually, with a series of measures slowly removing its influence, to deny the BBC self-propoganda machine the oxygen of outrage.

I had high hopes for John Whittingdale killing the Beeb by a thousand cuts, but he seems to have become housetrained and wet, refusing even to decriminalise the licence fee.

Original poster
Flashbangandgone · 31/08/2015 18:22

OP, tell me, do you object to flat rate VAT? Shouldn't you be starting threads about that?

The licence fee is a flat 'amount' rather than 'rate'. To equate VAT to the licence fee would be to say that everybody had to pay a set amount of VAT (say £2,000) every year to cover the cost of the VAT-able goods and services they bought, irrespective of how much they bought. If VAT was charged on that basis I would certainly start a thread on it!Confused

OP posts:
Original poster
Flashbangandgone · 31/08/2015 18:24

I think the trouble with the subscription model is that it would spell the end of minority, quirky broadcasting.

Try youtube.... No limit to quirky material available there!

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread