Should the BBC receive its Funding through the Licence Fee?

I was just listening to the radio and some woman who was caught watching tv without paying the licence fee is defending herself using legislation on human rights to say she shouldn't have to pay or something... I didn't hear it all. Anyway, do we think that the BBC should be funded through the licence fee, which is essentially a poll tax on us, or should we try another way?

The BBC was meant to educate and entertain the people but has often been accused of dumbing down and making decisions on ratings rather than on its mission to educate and entertain. In other words it has been accused of acting comercially when its future is secure.

One of my pet hates is how the terrestrial channels put programmes of a similar genre up against each other, news at 10, sport on saturdays, it happens all the time.

Some have said the BBC should be funded by advertising, and although there are no breaks in the programmes there are plenty of adverts for BBC products and programmes on the BBC, others have suggested that the BBC should be funded directly out of general taxation as that "is largely based on income."

I dont know what to think, anyone else have some ideas?

Advertising is the obvious answer, but I don't think it's right that you have to pay the licence fee even if you don't watch the BBC.

Also students should be exempt from paying licence fees .

The poll says licence fee or general taxation - thy're virtually the same re the bbc - 99% of us get stiffed for £120 per year for a broadcast version of the Guardian whether we want to or not.

At least I can choose to pay for C4 or Sky (or any other media for that matter). Free the people from the tyranny of the evil BBC poll tax I say and make the beeb earn their living!

The licence fee should be funded out of general taxation, surely this would be more sensible than having van's touring round our street's looking for licence dodger's!It is a public service anyway and it would save money in the long run. So many thing's in this country are out of date and need bringing up to date, we are way behind other countries in streamling our system's in many way's.Trouble with this country, it is up to eyeball's in stupid confrontation with the europoean economic comunity and hasn't got time for any sensible legislation.

A modern equivalent to the licence fee would be helpful (the licence fee is a very outdated way of collecting the BBC's money). Digital TV systems could help in this regard - it's much easier ensuring people pay for only what they watch that way. Taxation is more likely to help retain the BBC's unique character - it is unique compared to other countries' broadcasters and special enough to be worth keeping (friends and relatives abroad bemoan the appalling TV other countries produce and miss UK telly). I don't know how the government could argue funding for the BBC from taxation when funding for the arts and grass roots sports are so lousy. I can't see advertising being the answer either, but I do feel the BBC could make more of it's position and nature. It needs to attract viewers as it does need to demonstrate it's viability, but it isn't above the other channels' methods in this regard which is enormously irritating (the morons who decide what we watch when seem to be as common in the BBC as in ITV).

The BBC is a British institution - sort of like the Monachy (oops whole other debate).

I dunno - I don't watch the beeb except to keep the kiddies queit with the highly educational programmes. Sky One and Sci-fi have taken over for me give the license to them.

I reckon the license fee should be a lottery for the TV channels, making them fight to make better programmes.

All TV Licence payers to give their votes on the best TV channel for the year and then the winner gets the WHOLE years takings from the TV licences to help continue with their excellent programming. Or have the money staggered so you get a first second and third place.

I do not see why the Beeb should get loads of money for repeats.

Moon Maiden

When I was a school boy a friend of mine had the BBC visit his father. Something to do wth him selling insurance. He said they wasted loads of money. He said that they wanted it to look like winter so they covered his house and car in fake snow. Then for lunch someone was sent to a supermarket and brought back twice as much food as what was eaten, all sandwiches for £2+ each. I know he was a liar and prone to exaggeration, but its true that we have generally become a nation which does not shop around, leading to a rip-off britain.

The BBC seems to be run as a profit making business, what with videos and rights being sold to the highest bidders. And if so where do the profits go? Certainley not into cheap to make reality television and other assorted tosh that the BBC insults our intelligence with.

The BBC makes enough money, and given the variety of choice through satelliete, why should we continue to be taxed to pay for a channel that doesnt deliver?

£120 through a licence fee is a bargain.

I have digital TV, so get all their channels which I watch regularly. Not to mention the interactive elements with it.

I've got digital radio in my car, and listen to BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 7.

If anyone complains about quality, they aren't using what's provided enough.

Again, £120 in my opinion is a bargain.

Originally posted by "djadam"

 

£120 through a licence fee is a bargain.

I have digital TV, so get all their channels which I watch regularly. Not to mention the interactive elements with it.

I've got digital radio in my car, and listen to BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 7.

If anyone complains about quality, they aren't using what's provided enough.

Again, £120 in my opinion is a bargain.

I think it's far too expensive and you don't get the quality or choice that Sky TV gives you. For the same price you can pay for the basic package from sky which gives you many more channels and better quality programmes but of course you still have to buy the damn licence.

I've seen the programmes and channels you get with a Sky subscription. Quality isn't a word I'd choose - particularly for Sky's own-brand stuff. Also, you still have to pay for a subscription despite having your programme interrupted with adverts on most channels. At least with a licence fee the BBC doesn't waste your time showing you adverts and the other channels limit theirs compared to Sky's.

Originally posted by "Chris"

 

I've seen the programmes and channels you get with a Sky subscription. Quality isn't a word I'd choose - particularly for Sky's own-brand stuff. Also, you still have to pay for a subscription despite having your programme interrupted with adverts on most channels. At least with a licence fee the BBC doesn't waste your time showing you adverts and the other channels limit theirs compared to Sky's.

well perhaps you watch the wrong channels. I mean, Dicovery, Hostory Channel, Uk Horizons, Biography channel and award winning sky news. I mean, compared to Terresterial channels this is quality IMO.