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.

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

Blanche - if you don't believe private companies should be responsible for the broadcasting infrastructure (which is a socialist-type position I don't agree with but I'll go with it for the sake of the argument) surely general taxation is a much fairer way of managing this rather than requiring someone on JSA pays £145 per year for the privilege.

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

Ok, if you believe this then surely it's much fairer for it to be paid via general taxation. I don't know what the current JSA rate is but I'll guess the license fee is roughly 2 weeks worth of it. It doesn't get more regressive than that!.... Only it does... My parents are over 75, have very good pensions, and pay nothing!... And I'd hazard a guess that the over 75s watch more of the BBC than most other demographics. It's all beyond madness.

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

That link says that one of the services it helps pay for is broadband roll out to the UK population. So you don't use the internet then?

I don't object to it being paid for via taxation - although it would worry me that they's be subjected to governments cuts more easily. I don't want it to become a subscription only service - because we will lose the quality.

Thing is, to me, it's just so quintessentially British and I love it for that. I watch and enjoy all sorts of TV, American shows etc, but I don't want to lose the BBC and have it competing commercially with Sky - because it will lose, and then we will all lose something great. The fact that Rupert Murdoch is gunning for the BBC just makes me support it all the more.

I love the sheer variety of television that's available to me now - we don't have Sky, but we do have freesat, and I love that I can turn on ITV and watch a bit of dross - but on BBC4 there's some amazing documentary that I can switch on to. I also love the comedy/drama that the BBC/C4 invests in - comedy on other UK channels leaves me cold. The BBC needs to be a public corporation, with public money, to innovate and compete otherwise the competition will decrease, and that will lead to a decrease in the quality of all television.

They have a mandate for making television in the public interest, for making it educational, not purely to entertain. Tbh, I don't think the BBC generally does go in for the 'embarrassing ailments' type shows - I think that's more C4/C5. But if they have to become commercially competitive, you can bet - that's what they'll make, TV to sell to the masses and never mind the quality.

Plus I have a great dislike of adverts, and an even greater dislike of my children watching them.

eek - also an essay!

Of course I use the Internet - I'm using it right now actually . I pay my provider. Why should I pay the BBC as well?

Great point about the Broadband too - the BBC are more than a programme maker - they have been hugely important in the development of all sorts of telecommunications/internet infrastructure. This stuff needs public money - it needs to be a public service.

I'm just an old lefty though

£10.30 each month is spent on TV and radio.
.61p each month spent on Internet Services
£1.82 each month on 'other' (including license fee collection)

So, ok. I'll happily pay £7.32 per year on Internet services and a bit of the 1.82 for 'other' - round it up to a tenner maybe?. Why should I pay the rest?

Of course I use the Internet - I'm using it right now actually . I pay my provider. Why should I pay the BBC as well?

I agree... If money is needed for internet infrastructure investment, wouldn't it be fairer to charge a levy on internet providers, who would them pass the charge onto their internet customers? Those who use the internet, pay for the internet...

it's just so quintessentially British
What a load of tosh. ITV and C4 can do a good Brit drama. C4 has done some great Brit comedy over the years.

The only thing the BBC is quintessentially, is London-centric and upper middle class.

I am an old leftie too, and I think the BBC and the licence fee does us no favours at all.

Plus I have a great dislike of adverts, and an even greater dislike of my children watching them.

I don't pay for the BBC - my DD watches stuff on Netflix - no adverts.

The BBC is jam-packed full of repetitive adverts for its own programmes and services and pro-BBC propoganda.

C4 is part funded by the BBC. C4 also has public broadcasting responsibilities, it is not purely commercial.

It's £12 per month and I don't mind paying for it for the lack of advertising alone. However the flat fee does seem outdated now that there is so much more choice than years ago and a lot of people prefer other channels/ radio stations to BBC.

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.

But it is for an theatre company? A gallery? A museum? Elite sport? The BFI?

And then there are those controversial ones where the public benefit is a matter of considerable debate, such as Trident, tax breaks for private schools and fossil fuel extraction, that sort of thing...

Jassy

I'm not sure what your point is... Are you saying that general taxation should fund benefits that don't benefit society as a whole?

I used to work at the BBC and there is SO much money wasted, its unreal. If it were a commercial channel (s) then there would be more accountability and less funds down the drain.

'm not sure what your point is... Are you saying that general taxation should fund benefits that don't benefit society as a whole?

Simply pointing out that there are plenty of taxpayer-funded things where the 'benefit to society as a whole' to quote the PP, is questionable at best, and quite a few that are directly analogous to tevision production (if you strip out ingrained cultural snobbery).

The BBC is only unique due to the method of collecting the tax (which as I've said repeatedly, but probably need to keep saying, is in my view regressive and outmoded, however I also oppose it being folded into general taxation).

People who claim never to watch or listen to the BBC are missing out on an awful lot. There is an incredibly wide range of programmes over their various TV channels, you would have to have unbelievably narrow tastes if you could find nothing that you enjoyed. The same goes for their radio programmes. For me one of the great joys of Radio 4 is that you can switch it on randomly and come across some fascinating programme that you didn't even know was on - last week, for instance, it was an excellent one about Jacqueline du Pré. Go on, give it a try.

I am an inverterate Radio 4 and 5 listener. I would pay a small fee for that alone, but there is almost zero BBCTV I am interested in - which is how I've managed quite well without it for the last couple of years.

Also Radio 4 and 5 remain very London media centric and middle-class in outlook. There are piles and piles of adverts for other BBC programmes and services, and there is a lot of plugging of (mostly middle-class) people's books and companies all over it. It is a good companion, but it is far from perfect, and nowhere like as marvellous as it thinks it is.

Oh and I resent the tone of "people who claim" with the implication that they must be at least bending the truth.

C4 is part funded by the BBC.

Not according to Channel 4 -

www.channel4.com/info/corporate/about

We are a publicly-owned, commercially-funded public service broadcaster. We do not receive any public funding and have a remit to be innovative, experimental and distinctive.

'Pro-BBC propaganda' makes me laugh - name one other TV network that would commission and air a spoof about itself

And who doesn't watch Bake off?

Nice little Ofcom report highlighting just how London/ SE England centric the BBC is. It also clearly states that the majority of funding for BBC tv and radio comes from the licence fee (for the comment made to me earlier stating that BBC was not funded by the tv licence) Unless of course Ofcom are liars?

Look at ITV versus the BBC. The BBC output is far superior. I watch a lot of BBC 4 and listen to Radio 4. Sadly because most people won't pay for subscriptions to decent documentaries, they simply won't be made without the BBC. But there will instead be plenty of programmes mocking the poor, fat and unemployed.

Jeffrey, I was under the impression that the balance had changed since 2002, not just for Scotland but for the other home nations and the English regions?

I can't find a directly analogous report as all the comparable data is in other reports and I'm a bit pressed for time.