Tv licence has "10 years left"

[I1L2T3 10]

ruins my argument ? you havent even answered the question !

 

the only thing from your post i can deduce is something along the lines of it provides a service that a lot of people dont want to watch so we need to keep it that way for some reason ? feel free to dispute this !

 

surely if it provides such amazing value for money if it was made a subscription service nothing would change, people would rush to subscribe to the bbc ! so nothing changes !

 

its totally fair ! why are you so against a totally fair system ?

 

and your plan to replace basically a tax and swap it for a tax is oustanding work !

 

There's no question to answer because a public service broadcaster would never be morphed into a Sky-style pay TV service. Think about it for less than a second and you'd know that's true.

 

Actually what I'm suggesting is we lose the licence fee and use a tiny amount of taxation revenue to fund a streamlined version of the BBC. It would be cheaper and the tax would be progressive. Same sort of model as Channel 4.

 

Forget about the subscription service idea. It's daft.

[biotechpete 10]

I don't watch TV or own a TV so I have no need for a TV License. I do listen to national BBC radio.

I object to the thuggish tactics that the TV License Goons employ to make their sales bonuses and the aggressive and misleading letters they bombard people who are License free. I get constant letters telling me that a case has been opened, to expect an inspection and what to expect in court. But there is no law that says I must engage with these idiots.

 

I have spent 20 years listening to Radio 4 and Radio 5 and a few years ago the output was excellent. I listen to it less nowadays as they seem to be obsessed with Celebrity none stories and TV gossip, even in the serious news programmes.

I find this extremely disappointing.

The other thing I find disappointing about the BBC is their obsession with trying to compete with every other news service. Their Digital web page output was massive and they must have hundreds of people working on it. You have got to ask why is this necessary when most of the content is almost the same as any of the national newspapers, who do the same thing.

 

Most, if not all of the news site is copy for the TV broadcast news. They are simply putting on line what would be written anyway. Added to which much of the radio news is just the audio from TV broadcasts.

 

I have heard them talk about bringing back the radio license and making the TV subscription. That might work better I suppose in cases like yours.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2015 at 22:45 ----------

 

Challenge yourself to do it. To not buy a single product from a any company that advertises on ITV.

 

Be an interesting experiment. Don't know what you'll do for thrush cream though.

 

---------- Post added 22-06-2015 at 20:17 ----------

 

 

Sky is crazily expensive for what it is.

 

My lecturer at uni said it's better to use natural yoghurt for that anyway.

[bigsexydoug 10]

There's no question to answer because a public service broadcaster would never be morphed into a Sky-style pay TV service. Think about it for less than a second and you'd know that's true.

 

Actually what I'm suggesting is we lose the licence fee and use a tiny amount of taxation revenue to fund a streamlined version of the BBC. It would be cheaper and the tax would be progressive. Same sort of model as Channel 4.

 

Forget about the subscription service idea. It's daft.

 

so you cant answer it , brilliant argument that !

 

well done youve agreed to lose the licence fee, why would you then need a second channel like channel 4 to do the same thing as the channel 4 ?

 

genuine question but is this simply the case that you want someone else to subsidise the bbc for you becuase you like it ?

 

i honestly cant see any other reason for you to justify keeping the bbc via national taxation with so little argument from yourself.

 

you defend the bbc but cant defend why it cant compete on a level playing field, you cant defend it being a subscription service for some unknown reason, you like it, i get it and say stuff like its amazing value for money, yet cant give an explanation as to why people wouldnt subscribe , is this just a hatred of rupert murdoch would it help you if i compared it to richard bransons virgin ?

 

yet somehow we need to keep the bbc and send people to jail because why ?

 

give me one good reason why ?

 

just look at the poll results nearly 46 % of people want it to be a subscription service , why is that ?

only 7% want it kept the same and 7% want it via national taxation, it seems the vast majority are happy to let the bbc go .

[Happ Hazzard 10]

Just do the BBC as an on demand service and let people pay for the programmes they choose to watch. That's the future of TV anyway.

[I1L2T3 10]

so you cant answer it , brilliant argument that !

 

well done youve agreed to lose the licence fee, why would you then need a second channel like channel 4 to do the same thing as the channel 4 ?

 

genuine question but is this simply the case that you want someone else to subsidise the bbc for you becuase you like it ?

 

i honestly cant see any other reason for you to justify keeping the bbc via national taxation with so little argument from yourself.

 

you defend the bbc but cant defend why it cant compete on a level playing field, you cant defend it being a subscription service for some unknown reason, you like it, i get it and say stuff like its amazing value for money, yet cant give an explanation as to why people wouldnt subscribe , is this just a hatred of rupert murdoch would it help you if i compared it to richard bransons virgin ?

 

yet somehow we need to keep the bbc and send people to jail because why ?

 

give me one good reason why ?

 

just look at the poll results nearly 46 % of people want it to be a subscription service , why is that ?

only 7% want it kept the same and 7% want it via national taxation, it seems the vast majority are happy to let the bbc go .

 

I don't think it's a valid option for the BBC to be a subscription service.

 

As a public service broadcaster the point isn't to make it a level playing field.

 

I wouldn't pay for Virgin TV either.

 

I never said I wanted to send people to jail. In fact my preferred option removes that totally.

 

Any poll on Sheffield forum for things like this is worthless because of the issue with users having multiple aliases.

 

I think you're getting a bit too worked up.

 

Chill out.

[code word 10]

Tv licence has "10 years left"

I don’t care. Never paid never will. Over 50 years now.

[BarryRiley 10]

Most countries in western Europe have TV licence or media fees and/or central grants from the state to public service broadcasters.

 

Nothing disgraceful about it at all. It's pretty normal.

 

The licence fees here are actually cheaper than in some of the other countries, and out service is way superior.

 

You don't think it's disgraceful that the entire public are forced to pay for a ultra-biased news service that doesn't represent the political views of everyone who pays for it? I don't think that's fair. Yes, I think it's disgraceful that an entire country are forced to pay for an ultra-left propaganda machine.

[mimic 10]

What do you think funds iplayer and most of the content on it. - magic beans?

 

Might that be the "Commercial arm of the BBC"?

 

I can see that you are a steadfast beebs fan that has decided beyond doubt that they are worth the money. I'm sure if you look over the web there are far more pages against the license fee than are for it.

 

The simple answer is...

 

You think it's worth the money.

 

I don't

[BarryRiley 10]

What do you think funds iplayer and most of the content on it. - magic beans?

 

The BBC has to make programmes. Its needs studios, offices, props, sets and of course talent to create what is broadcasts.

 

The way you choose to watch something is irrelevant. There is far more to the BBC than just the end product and far more paid out of licence fee monies which would simply not exist if funded by other means.

 

Nobody if they had a choice would CHOOSE to fund say, religious programming or educational programming or disability access services or foreign language services. They certainly would not choose to pay subscription for news services either. However, it does not stop them being watched and used by the population. Many of those no doubt will be ones complaining about the licence fee.

 

Lets also never forget (which so many people do) that a chunk of licence fee monies also went to pay for the "subscription free" Freeview service which so many people embraced. Again, I suspect many of those freeview customers will be complaining about the licence fee too.

 

People should look into exactly what the piffle of £12.00 a month actually provides for the nation. All those smug "I don't have a TV" commenters might change if all those freely available BBC radio stations went subscription only or disappeared altogether.

 

The BBC is still to this day under a Royal Charter to provide Public Service not always aiming for a profit. Its something the commercial broadcasters such as Sky don't have on their back. To lose a national service might be one of the biggest mistakes we ever make. Take a look around the world at what tv broadcasting is like in other countries. It sometimes make you grateful for what we have.

 

The American style of adverts every 10 minutes is bad enough, but do we really want a service where every single programme title is a blatant as this...

The commercial channels are bad enough as it is.

 

Do we really want every single TV programme to be filled with stuff like this....

 

As for those gloating online users, no long before youtube/Netflix/prime will all be filled with non skip adverts too. Its happening more and more as it is. Itv and 4player already have long lead in adverts. As for youtube, even some of the shortest videos can be stuck with a 2.00min ad at the start.

 

Sometimes its nice to actually be able to watch something all the way through and dare I say it, commercial free.

 

You're picking extreme examples of programs which have been influenced negatively by the fact that they are made commercially, which is easy to do, but consider the following:

 

Breaking Bad

The Wire

Lost

Game of Thrones

 

...all of which are produced commercially and all of which have garnered huge international audiences.

 

The BBC on the other hand has used public money to produce The Voice - a clear attempt to compete with commercial channels' reality TV shows.

 

We live in a changing media world now, where people have millions of potential channels of content and I think the idea of paid state television has had its day in any but the most undemocratic juntas. The BBC can't guarantee their command of the increasingly diluted audience share any more and what have they produced in the last 5 years to compete with the likes of Netflix and HBO exclusives?

[I1L2T3 10]

You don't think it's disgraceful that the entire public are forced to pay for a ultra-biased news service that doesn't represent the political views of everyone who pays for it? I don't think that's fair. Yes, I think it's disgraceful that an entire country are forced to pay for an ultra-left propaganda machine.

 

It's not ultra-biased though. Last night on Newsnight an ex-Tory minister was allowed to tell complete lies completely unchallenged. Just an example.

 

I think by bias you mean potentially uncontrollable.

[bigsexydoug 10]

I don't think it's a valid option for the BBC to be a subscription service.

 

As a public service broadcaster the point isn't to make it a level playing field.

 

I wouldn't pay for Virgin TV either.

 

I never said I wanted to send people to jail. In fact my preferred option removes that totally.

 

Any poll on Sheffield forum for things like this is worthless because of the issue with users having multiple aliases.

 

I think you're getting a bit too worked up.

 

Chill out.

 

Give us a reason then what the BBC is so good at that no one else can do that we should pay roughly 4 billion per year for through taxation ?

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 10:26 ----------

 

The BBC is a public good, unlike Sky, Netflix etc. which are private companies. The appropriate/only way to pay for a public good is collectively, through a licence fee or taxation or something. Making it into a subscription service would turn it into a private rather than public good. Many babies would get thrown out with the bathwater. As L00b and Joni Mitchell say, you won't know what you've got till it's gone.

 

I agree with those posters who are saying that it's probably time for the BBC to be paid for out of general taxation, rather than the licence fee. Would be cheaper to collect, for one thing. What you see as a "fair" tax will depend on how much money you've got. The licence fee is effectively a regressive tax, which will be seen as "fair" by better off people (apart from Taxpayers' Alliance types who think that all taxation is "unfair") and "unfair" by the less well off (and by people in general who are concerned about social justice).

 

I would miss paying £145 for something I dont use at all ?

 

Why would it be gone ? People would be desperate to subscribe surely ?

[Happ Hazzard 10]

I don't think the BBC does the public any good.