I DON'T AGREE that the BBC licence isn't justifiable and STRONGLY suspect a SJY buy-off of politicians.

[vinegarandbrownpaper]

There's no way the BBC isnt the most awesome resource.

My plan would be:
a. lower cost voluntary fee for users who don't have a telly but do feel love for the bbc/output. Like a 'friends of' fee, perhaps with some access rewards or involvement in internal decisions.
b. A 'would you like to buy the team a coffee' type small payment on iplayer. Voluntary but giving the user a chance to occasionally give monetary Thanks.
c. Some crowd-funded production targets eg 'ab fab summer special' etc
d. A radio-fan voluntary licence club with open events and forums for payers. Low cost, but allows a monetary 'Thanks' for payment.
e. Monetising playlister platform for overseas audiences and asking for cross-payments for signposted content.

I don't have tv and don't pay licence but would pay a 'no tv' enthusiasts or radio fan licence for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost if it were available and badged as such (and stopped the unstoppable letters and 'investigations' that must waste a LOT of money.

As far as I know there is no mechanism for additional voluntary payments to the bbc which is a shame.

And alsofuck you sky, stop buying our politicians.

I like that you posted I telly addicts.

I think that they should make it compulsory to have a licence if you want to watch iplayer. It's a ridiculous loophole.

I don't mind paying my license, I have a tv and almost all of the programmes i watch are bbc.

I think they should have a better policy for opting out though. Many people probably never watch it at all but still have to pay.

I have sky because I want to record and I grudge them their money more than I grudge my tv license.

It would be nice however if I could get a reduction in my licence based on the fact that I can get a paltry 9 or so channels on Freeview, and not many more radio channels. Perhas that would give them an incentive to sort out coverage around the country so that eveyone gets treated equally. My lone voice isn't going to change anything, but the might of the BBC could.

I do mind paying my licence. I want to choose to subscribe or not. If I want to access the BBC, I will happily pay for it. I object to being made to pay for it whether I want to watch it or not, just because I have a tv on which I have other things that I do want to watch.

In this day and age there is no need for TVs to screen channels that people don't use.

I would prefer BBC to be 'opt in' - like a Sky subscription channel, but with the money going to the BBC. I resent paying for channels I don't watch - I reckon I could count on one hand the amount of BBC programmes I watch - and none of them would be ones that I would miss (Bake off and sewing bee with DD, Top Gear with DH and, ah, that's it). I shouldn't have to pay £145 a year for that.

What Eve said!! The only thing I watch on the actually bbc s Eastenders (I know!) but it should be pay per view. I have sky, I have netflix, i begrudge paying for numerous repeats!!

I think your idea is brilliant vinegarandbrownpaper much more sensible and fair than the touted 'everyone pays across the board as an increase in council tax'
What bullshit is that!!??!

I would rather not pay for the licence as I don't watch bbc programs or channels . Just through preference not principle though! I can think of better ways to spend my £145 a year.

Also , would scrapping the TV licence and making it a pay as you use style service force the bbc to produce programs people want to watch? I would happily pay for good quality programs that interest me. It's why I have Netflix.

I actually did 'LOL' @ this

And alsofuck you sky, stop buying our politicians

I totally agree. I only watch SCD and Doctor Who live, use iPlayer v occasionally but I listen to loads of BBC radio. DH is always saying we could ditch the licence if we just did catch-up on those two but apart from the fact I want to watch them live I do feel I should pay for the hours and hours of broadcasting I get. Maybe just not as much as I am paying!

We can't use Iplayer, catch up, net flicks etc as we live in a shit broadband area. A lot of people in the countryside do, I don't want to end up paying à fortune for live BBC because we can't access Iplayer.

The I'm alright jack sky fans are a bit deluded. SKY are masters at a. Charging for a 'service' that is overwhelmingly channels and programs that arent watched and b. Getting you to pay twice. Once as a subscriber and second as a pair of eyes that advertisers pay sky for. With so many services these days advertising is shown to 'free' customers and paid for services have no/low advertising. I know me viewing adverts is more of value to SKY than my subscription would be and with no tv I have never found a sky programme I would pay to watch as sky production is just weaker. I can pay direct to producing channel for most boxed set type shows, so really don't get why people pay for another broadcaster mostly showing stuff that's unwatchable.

This debate is always skewed by people defending their spending choices

Vinegar-as I said in my previous post, people in our area have no choice other than sky. We can't get free view, Virgin, Iplayer, etc etc.

There is talk of us getting faster broadband in our area next year so hopefully that will give us more choice and mean we don't have to pay extortionate Sky charges.

Actually I've just realised we pay the licence fee, but if we didn't have sky TV wouldn't beable to watch it. So we do indeed pay twice.

I don't understand your argument OP, or why you think I'm deluded?

BBC doesn't make/show the programmes I want to watch, so why do I have to pay for it? Sky does show the programmes I want to watch, so I pay to watch them. I don't want to watch them as box sets because I'd rather see them as they are broadcast.

What is deluded about that?

I think it's cheap for the amazing service round the world.

I could get away with only doing catch up but I love the radio so very happy to pay for it.

Also, the bliss of no adverts mustn't be underestimated. I watched 4OD the other day, just like itv player it can be really shit - on catch up you watch all the bloody adverts and sometimes the damn thing crashes so you have to rematch them.

And you can't fast forward through the adverts like you could when you recorded things on video.

I HATE adverts and would happily pay the bbc treble to run itv and channel 4 with no adverts.

Eve I doubt you watch all the sky programs all the time so you are already paying for programs you don't watch. Why are you ok to pay Sky for programs you don't watch, but not BBC?

Ah, OK, I understand (I think)

I actually don't watch that much TV. The programmes I watch are on Sky1, Sky Living, Fox and 5*. It's about 8 programmes and I can't get them on Freeview.

I pay for a basic Sky package (£22 a month) and that gives me those channels. It also gives DD Nick and Disney, and gives DH NatGeo and Discovery. I think that is worth the money.

My TV licence costs me £12.50 a month and I watch 2 BBC programmes, sometimes 3.

(I also watch a couple of Ch4 and Ch5 shows, but of course could get those on normal TV)

£22.00 for 8 programmes = £2.75 a programme (and that doesn't include DDs or DHs shows)
£12.50 for 3 programmes = £4.16 a programme

I think Sky is worth it, but I don't feel the same about the BBC.

(I also don't mind adverts, it gives me chance to make a cuppa, go to the loo, let the dog out etc)

Op, one thing I'm confused by is the fact that you think it's an awesome resource but don't have a telly?

Do you watch box sets of bbc programs or use Iplayer? I can't work out why you are such a fan if you don't use it. (Genuine question on little sleep so apologies if I'm missing something obvious! )

I think that the existence of the bbc raises the quality of tv available in the UK generally so was happy to pay it even though I can't think of many bbc programs that I actually watched (live abroad now). I see it as a sort of "culture" tax. In particular I would be concerned about losing the news and current affairs.

There is, off course, a method of voluntary payments for those who consume BBC services but aren't currently forced to buy a license fee right now. It's called buying a tv license anyway.

I think sky (or Virgin) customers who don't use BBC services (and there will be some; there will be even more who'd choose not to subscribe to the BBC and would stop watching what little they currently do if that were an option) are perfectly entitled to complain that they license fee is mandatory for anyone who wants to watch live tv (even if only through their sky package). Why is their opinion (as current license holders) somehow less valid than the OP's?

TheJiminy but the BBC does so much more than programming. In the last few days I have accessed online news, weather, educational resources on history and coding and games for different ages and stages. They appear to archive and make available every recipe that has ever appeared on any of their cookery shows. Plus the radio (I could go on for hours about BBC radio, I heart it) and of course podcasts. All totally 'free' although obviously funded via TV licence.

There are paid and free alternatives of course, but I really like the BBC online interface and imo generally the information is of a very high quality. Their websites are used in schools as an example of an authoritative resource. You may not agree with that but it happens!

I understand the point about the online resources but there are so many alternatives. Especially for educational purposes.

For me personally , I prefer to pay for what I use and enjoy. This might mean I pay for the bbc news app and use of the cbeebies website for DD. But not for the television programs or radio. I occasionally listen to Radio One but prefer other stations. I don't listen to any of the other bbc stations or download the podcasts.

It's personal preference and I think it would be fairer to have a pay as you use system. If you are a big fan of the bbc then £145 annually is well spent. If you are willing to use alternatives or go without options then it is not such good value.

Yes, which is why I agree with vinegar's alternatives, particularly the 'friends of' idea and the radio-fan payment.