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 licence fee now also funds BBC Monitoring which used to be funded by the MoD (until 2013 when licence fee payers got the bill).

For those who don't know BBC Monitoring is government surveillance of whatever is being broadcast in other countries.

That sounds like fun!!

So the MoD no longer get paid to monitor our allies or the weather? Hmmmm! Could be a risky strategy, that!

Flashbang: You tube lacks any sort of credibility, at least the BBC has some (unless your'e that fat twat Alex Salmond).

No the MoD never did the monitoring. The BBC did but the MoD paid the bill. The BBC will still do it and the MoD get will get it for free.

Ah! So that will make up for them losing the Met weather then!

Sorry, I misunderstood. It is all so beautifully complicated

I do like the idea of the BBC, but I can see why people who watch live television on other channels aren't happy about the license fee, especially if they are already paying a subscription. It does seem quite outmoded to force people to pay for something they never use. A subscription service would be fairer.

Saying that, although I like the idea of the Beeb, we're another household who never watch BBC programming, we don't have a television, and watch DVDs, or use services like Netflix.

BBC radio used to be good, but I haven't listened to that for a couple of years, they just don't broadcast anything I'm interested in. They rarely play any music I like, so I play my own or use on-line services. The same with documentary radio programmes, I download podcasts about subjects I'm interested in.

Again. Paying to access as it airs telly is the point of the licence/law.

What will happen if the licence goes and that law is repealed? Who will then pay Arqiva / Crown Castle / NTL / some Australian bank for the use of the antennas? Each broadcaster must have a distribution network, after all!

Sorry, meant to add:

I don't know the answers, DH knows more of the questions as he works in the commissioning side of the industry. But the constant misunderstandings and lack of detailed information does, perhaps, explain why it will take so long to change the structure and funding of the BBC. They don't just broadcast. The charter invests in them all sorts of other jobs that make it possible for all broadccasters to operate.

Why can't the broadcaster pay that? It seems reasonable. I don't pay a telephone license to BT for the right to use the phone lines. I pay my service provider, and they pay BT for using their equipment.

Another one that thinks the BBC should be subscription based. I don't watch live BBC programmes, I don't use BBC internet services, nor BBC radio.

It galls me to pay for something I don't use. I pay my Sky subscription (£22/month) happily because they show the programmes I want to watch on the channels they provide. The BBC does not do this, and yet I could go to prison if I didn't pay. It's wrong.

The antenna rent? Well they could... just like the various phone companies do... but that would give an Australian bank a wonderful monopoly...

BT are not quite a monopoly, and very will soon be less so. And just think, you currently pay one provider for one phone line. Way back when both ends of the conversation had to pay extra if you called across providers. What happens when you have to pay each broadcaster for their product? What packages would you have to search through? Who would provide all the not so obvious services the BBC are currently obligated to provide?

Who would pay for expansion, changes? If you use your phone as a model then all of the broadcasters you currently know will disappear as they are bankrupted paying for the license to broadcast and the quality of our service will be reduced. Again just like our mobile phones.

It really isn't just a case of applying a subscription model. It is also about protecting us, the consumer, and ensuring we don't lose vital services.

Dallas, again you are misunderstanding what you are paying for... blame the government for that! They are the ones who impose the law that levies the fee for watching as it is aired telly.

My understanding is that I am paying for what the BBC and TVLicensing Department tells me I am paying for:

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

www.bbc.co.uk/corporate2/insidethebbc/whoweare/licencefee

I don't use the services that they tell me I have to pay for (or go to prison). Why should I pay?

"Way back when both ends of the conversation had to pay extra if you called across providers."

Are you talking about mobile providers? Because I'm pretty old and I don't remember a time when say, a BT customer had to pay to receive a call from a Talk Talk one.

"What happens when you have to pay each broadcaster for their product? "

I already do this. There are a growing number of online subscription services offering film, television and/or music. I'm perfectly happy to pay to consume content I enjoy. I'm not willing to pay for services I don't use.

Meant to add - I'm no longer unusual in doing what I do. A growing number of people are not watching live television, and are not watching anything the BBC produce. In fact, I rarely watch any current British television at all. At one time that would have made me an oddity, but now I'm becoming more and more mainstream. At some point the numbers are going to tip in favour of those who don't need a license and so won't buy one. What happens to the BBC then?

I don't use the services that they tell me I have to pay for (or go to prison). Why should I pay?

Well, why should you pay for dozens of public services you don't use?

Like what Jassy?

I don't think you can compare services provided by general taxation to a one-off payment (of a specified sum) for a television company. The services provided by taxation generally benefit society as a whole whether individuals use them or not. That isn't the case with a television company.

It's not just a television company though, and shouldn't be seen as one. It's a public broadcasting corporation, a public service - just like public libraries, museums for example. It's there, and provided for us whether we use them or not.

I wouldn't object to the licence being means tested - hell, I'll even pay more for it - the BBC was worth it for me when my dc were small, for cbeebies/CBBC alone. Excellent children's shows - no advertising. But I'm not sure how it would be means-tested economically, without just being part of general taxation - which I suppose is a possibility.

But I strongly object to it just becoming another opt-in commercial channel, because it is more than that.

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.

The 'public interest' element needs to be stripped from the rest... I.e. The component of the BBC that it is deemed we require in order to promote a healthy democratic society. I'm not sure where to draw the line here but I would think it should probably encompass news and current affairs, alongside some world service broadcasting.... A small sub-section of the current BBC behemoth. I'd continue to protect this from political interference via a charter and pass an act which guaranteed funding for this from general taxation for a set period.

I can't see why the rest shouldn't be subscription. If that causes a fall in revenues then so be it.... As the public will be paying for the entertainment they want. You may want the BBC's 'entertainment' funding to be kept at current levels, but if the public at large don't want to pay that much, you have no right to demand that they do.

It seems very selfish to expect others to pay for something they don't want just because you want it.. Having said that, the BBC is very popular so could very likely generate significant subscription revenues for its non-tax funded part.

The services provided by taxation generally benefit society as a whole whether individuals use them or not. That isn't the case with a television company.

I agree with this^
Unfortunately some posters seem to think that the bbc does provide a general benefit to society and that we will all suffer without it. They cannot comprehend the fact that there is no reason the current system cannot be changed to enable people to watch live tv excluding the bbc if they do not wish to pay a licence fee. I've yet to see a credible reason why the rules on that can't be changed. The services provided by taxation generally benefit society as a whole whether individuals use them or not. That isn't the case with a television company. All this talk of masts and infrastructure, well fine charge me the amount of using just that because I bet it is a very tiny part of the actual £145 annual charge especially given the info on the tv licensing website detailing where my licence money is spent.

Sorry, random copied line appeared in the middle of my post.

Good grief, I would say the BBC benefits society as a whole, and always has.

"It's not just a television company though, and shouldn't be seen as one. It's a public broadcasting corporation, a public service - just like public libraries, museums for example. It's there, and provided for us whether we use them or not. "

I see what you mean, but for me it's not the same. Even if I don't go to museums (I do) I still benefit from other services provide by taxation, like the NHS, or the police force. For me the equivalent would be if you paid for a tv license but only watched BBC 2, you wouldn't be using the full range of services, but you would still get a return for your money.

And yes, it does provide a range of services, but television is the only one you need a license to use.

I agree about separating the public service part from the other stuff. I do support the BBC (despite what I'm saying here) for things like news and education. In fact, if they concentrated on subjects like that I would probably find them of use. Things like variety shows, soaps, reality tv, and those weird 'documentaries' about people with embarrassing ailments, no. They should leave that to the other channels and concentrate on what they do well.

Eek. That's a novel.