Page 1 of Is the TV licence fee value for money?

There seems to be many people who think it is value for money,
personally I dont think so, another typical UK tax burden for the masses (Not like the working class dont already pay enough) yet many will defend this taxation til there blue in the face only because it suits them. Is it not beyond the great british think tank to devise a fairer way to collect the licence fee, for example if you want to watch programs from the BBC pay for it, if you dont watch the BBC then dont pay for it? This idea isnt limited by technology but by the fatcat`s who get payed huge wages for this unfair and draconian taxation. Fair comment?

Value is not the issue realy it`s the fact you are forced to buy it.

They are being taken to the Court Of Human Rights because they are restricting your rights for freedom of information, ie you can`t own a TV unless you pay the BBC a fee, so you can`t watch the news from Sky,ITV ect unless you pay the Beeb wich is unfair.

Bear.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 12th February 2003, 10:34

Yes IMHO it is value for money.
I may be wrong but I thought the licence fee was a licence that permits the occupier of a household to operate television reception equipment or equipment that can be easily modified / adapted to receive television broadcasts.
So I really do not see how making the licence compulsory for the under 75`s is a restriction of anyones right to freedom of information as the licence is for the use of the equipment. That would be like saying newspapers should be free as the price denies you the right to freedom of information.
Yes I agree the BBC are funded through public funding via the fee and unfortunately that enables them to produce dross like East Enders, Casualty etc. On the other side of this is the fact that the BBC also have continually produced wonderful programmes such as Walking with Beasts / Dinosaurs, Wildlife on One / Two, Ab Fab, KMKY, Alan Partridge, Waking the dead,along with many other programmes that any commercial station would give their eye teeth to have produced or the rights to broadcast. Only for them to then butcher these programmes with their 14 to 15 minutes each and every hour of the obligatory advertisements for fud fresh or other Hole-some :-) products.
The cost of a licence will be roughly £120 or £0.33/ day. Not exactly a punitive charge for the general population who probably like myself enjoy the odd snifter of port. One pint of beer = £2.20 so by me cutting out one pint I have almost recovered the cost of one weeks TV viewing. Maybe not the best analogy but close enough.
There is no such thing anywhere as free TV other than maybe North Korea where you would be thrilled by the exploits of super heroes such as "Socialist Worker against Fascist Repressive capitalist"
or
"How the west was won"
or even
" George Bush, my part in his downfall" :-).
The advertisements have to be paid for and the air time has to be bought at very high rates. With this in mind this cost will be passed on to the consumer. So if the licence fee was scrapped then the funds would come from everybody whether they watched or not as the cost would be incorporated in the cost of the goods we buy.
The free licence for the over 75`s scheme should possibly be broadened to include all pensioners of 65 years or more in mens cases and 60 years old in women.
This country is wonderful, we complain when someone invokes the Human rights legislation in some trivial case yet many of the same people would use the very same type of legislation to save them having to pay a TV licence.
As usual JMHO Choagy :-)

This item was edited on Wednesday, 12th February 2003, 12:41

OOOOPS .
Almost forgot.
The licence fee is fantastic value as it allows us to watch the
1966 World Cup final again and again and again and again and again and again!!!!
YAWN YAWN :-)

So I really do not see how making the licence compulsory for the under 75`s is a restriction of anyones right to freedom of information as the licence is for the use of the equipment. That would be like saying newspapers should be free as the price denies you the right to freedom of information.


If I want to read the Times News paper does that mean I have got to buy all the other Newspapers as well!

No I have a choice, with the licence fee I do not!



Bear.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 12th February 2003, 18:34

There is nothing like a good sensible debate and your reply is certainly nothing like a good sensible debate.
TTFN :-)

Although the BBC-1 seem to be producing more and more downmarket dirge in order to compete with ITV-Scum (sorry, ITV-1), the quality output of BBC-2 more than justifies the licence fee in itself. As Choagy stated, Alan Partridge would be butchered on a commercial channel (and humorous references to Lexus, Sunny Delight and Dr. Pepper would definitely be censored, rather than offend advertisers).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/lic_index.shtml

Here`s the BBC`s side of it all. Personally speaking, I think the BBC(including radio) beats the crap out of commercially sponsored rubbish, even in the BBC `Lite` regime we have at the moment.

My mate moved home not long ago, he was only resident there 3 days when a licence inspector came to visit him at his humble abode, granted he had not renewed his licence and was without one for a whole Month (oh the shock) regardless he let the inspector in to have alook around knowing that he at the time had no tv, sat box or digi box on the
premises, however what thay did find was an old betamax recorder that didnt work but he kept for sentimental reasons. Long story short £150 fine! Nobody can tell me thats fair!

TV licence fair? Nop just another excuse to bleed MORE money from us!

So if it`s not fair to you, what would you propose as a replacement? Advertising isn`t a viable option as it`s been in a downturn for the last couple of years and there aren`t many signs of recovery to the peaks it once had.

Television advertising spend is spent on ITV/2, C4, C5 and Sky. There`s no room to advertise on the BBC, and even if it did start advertising, there`s no way it would get the £2bn+ it gets from the licence fee.

Pay-per-view isn`t viable either as there wouldn`t be enough money to cover the costs of running the Beeb/BBCi/radio. Television programming would suffer, national and local radio will lose out too with stations forced to close.

People underestimate what the BBC actually does apart from television and radio. It`s involved in R&D too which benefits the television and radio industry. For example, ITV/C4/Sky aren`t involved with the development of HD broadcasting on the same scale as the Beeb. There would have been no NICAM digital stereo, or RDS if it weren`t for the BBC. There are countless contributions over the decades since the BBC started in the 30s.

On alternative funding models, there is a govt. report being compiled into the funding and future of the BBC as a public service broadcaster ahead of the renewal of its 2006 Royal Charter. You`ll have to wait until then to know more about what will happen.

I personally think the licence fee provides value for money when you consider what it does cover. If you don`t want to pay the licence fee that`s fine. Remove all your broadcasting receiving equipment.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 12th February 2003, 14:28