Is the TV licence worth £145.50 a year?

[Jimmy Come Lately]

I pay £84 per month so over £1000 a year for sky which includes the BBC channels so why should I pay another £145 for channels that I technically have already paid for.

None of the money you pay to Sky goes to the BBC. In fact, until 2014 £4.5m of licence fee money was paid by the BBC to Sky for Sky to carry its channels (until 2011 it was £10m annually). Fortunately for licence fee payers this payment to Sky has been reduced to zero. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/28/bbc-bskyb-agree-retransmission-deal

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

All the while they make Dr Who then yes *thumbsup*

In all seriousness what El Pres said.

 

[cunning fergus]

Whether you support the licence fee or not, and for the record I don't, change is coming and this will effect the BBC, and how it's funded.

The very worst aspect about the licence fee is that non payment is a criminal offence, which essentially means the BBC criminalises the poor. This is an outrageous situation that will be resolved in time making non payment a civil offence.

A progressive move we would all agree, but one that will surely lead to hundreds of thousands (maybe more) not paying the licence fee........myself included. This alone will mean the BBC confronts its archaic funding arrangements.

Then, there are other threats on the horizon, and ironically for the pro EU BBC the EU may well actually be its nemesis.

The creation of a single digital market in the EU will (say) remove the BBC's ability to prevent non UK IP addresses from accessing iPlayer. That will mean subscriptions may not be far away, however trying to replace the fee with something else mandatory for all citizens will be politically difficult. Such change to the UK all bought to you by an unelected Estonian..........

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/ansip_en

Ultimately forcing people to pay for something they don't want, will mean the subscription will become voluntary, and the BBC will have to come in to the real world, not one subsidised by a tax.

Happy Honecker.

 

[drew]

Whether you support the licence fee or not, and for the record I don't, change is coming and this will effect the BBC, and how it's funded.

The very worst aspect about the licence fee is that non payment is a criminal offence, which essentially means the BBC criminalises the poor. This is an outrageous situation that will be resolved in time making non payment a civil offence.

A progressive move we would all agree, but one that will surely lead to hundreds of thousands (maybe more) not paying the licence fee........myself included. This alone will mean the BBC confronts its archaic funding arrangements.

Then, there are other threats on the horizon, and ironically for the pro EU BBC the EU may well actually be its nemesis.

The creation of a single digital market in the EU will (say) remove the BBC's ability to prevent non UK IP addresses from accessing iPlayer. That will mean subscriptions may not be far away, however trying to replace the fee with something else mandatory for all citizens will be politically difficult. Such change to the UK all bought to you by an unelected Estonian..........

http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/ansip_en

Ultimately forcing people to pay for something they don't want, will mean the subscription will become voluntary, and the BBC will have to come in to the real world, not one subsidised by a tax.

Happy Honecker.

What's to stop the state funding the state broadcaster. I take it you don't watch or listen to BBC content then, either live or via i-player.

 

[cunning fergus]

What's to stop the state funding the state broadcaster. I take it you don't watch or listen to BBC content then, either live or via i-player.

Not sure, EU competition laws maybe?

Fact is if a political party wants to support the BBC direct from existing tax revenue, that's a big political call.

I pay so watch bits and pieces, however I would happily not pay for it and continue with other channels..........let those that love it or who can afford it pay for it.

Seems only fair to me.

 

[HastingsSeagull]

Think these days we should be given the choice, but hard to control that probably

 

[jimbob5]

It's a tough one. Thanks to living under a fairly right wing regime for nearly 40 years, 145 squid for some peeps is a fair chunk of dosh but for others is no more than a small tip. The bigger question is: If the divide between the rich and the poor too wide?

 

[drew]

It's a tough one. Thanks to living under a fairly right wing regime for nearly 40 years, 145 squid for some peeps is a fair chunk of dosh but for others is no more than a small tip. The bigger question is: If the divide between the rich and the poor too wide?

Are you being serious? If someone can't afford just under £3 a week for the BBC then maybe they should not have a TV. If we didn't have a licence fee, the alternative would be subscription and how many of those people who can't afford the licence fee would be able to afford the subscriptions, which, in all likelihood, would be a lot more?

 

[cunning fergus]

Are you being serious? If someone can't afford just under £3 a week for the BBC then maybe they should not have a TV. If we didn't have a licence fee, the alternative would be subscription and how many of those people who can't afford the licence fee would be able to afford the subscriptions, which, in all likelihood, would be a lot more?

I see, a kind of let them eat brioche type approach?

Auntie knows best.

 

[drew]

I see, a kind of let them eat brioche type approach?

Auntie knows best.

Not in the sllightest. If there is no BBC, what alternative would they have? If the BBC went to subscription, how long before ITV would have to follow suit. The current situation is probably the cheapest option for them other than complete abstention from television.

 

[jimbob5]

Are you being serious? If someone can't afford just under £3 a week for the BBC then maybe they should not have a TV. If we didn't have a licence fee, the alternative would be subscription and how many of those people who can't afford the licence fee would be able to afford the subscriptions, which, in all likelihood, would be a lot more?

You've done the classic jumping down my throat and then backing up my point. Is it right that there are people in our society who would struggle to find £3 a week when there is so much wealth swishing around.

 

[Fungus]

Absolutely "Yes". Glad to see all the support on here.

 

[jimbob5]

To most people it's OK and it's stupid making it free for rich pensioners. However if things are a bit tight, you don't watch much TV and what you do watch can be seen on a iplayer the question might be 'should you do the decent thing and pay for the service, given what it provides for the money?' Answer in my case 'well I would do but not if they pay the silly money they do to presenters e.g. the bloke with the big ears and the scottish chap on MOTD that tall curly haired bloke on Top Gear etc'

 

[cunning fergus]

Not in the sllightest. If there is no BBC, what alternative would they have? If the BBC went to subscription, how long before ITV would have to follow suit. The current situation is probably the cheapest option for them other than complete abstention from television.

Maybe they can watch pornography all day, that is free to those with just a mobile phone.

If you had told someone that would be the reality15 years ago most people would have said you were mad?

Things change, so will the BBC, it's funding framework is not sustainable on a number of different levels............some of which are politically progressive.

I think you can relax overall, with all its supporters on here I am sure you will all be happy to dig deep for the BBC so they maintain such delights as Changing Rooms and Antique Road Trip.

It's not all bad.

 

[happypig]

The very worst aspect about the licence fee is that non payment is a criminal offence, which essentially means the BBC criminalises the poor. This is an outrageous situation that will be resolved in time making non payment a civil offence.

The problem with decriminalising non-payment of the license fee (The same applies to council tax) is that large numbers of people would stop paying, leading very quickly to them running out of funds. The ultimate threat of imprisonment* is very persuasive (even though, in reality, it's highly unlikely).
The worst thing about TV license non-payment is that to be prosecuted for it, you have to incriminate yourself but, unlike speeding, there is no provision in law for you to identify yourself to the TV licensing authority's enforcement officers; this leads to two scenarios, the first where the officer says "are you watching TV without a license", you say "yes", he asks your name and you tell him. The second scenario you shut the door in his face.
Only one of these will lead to court.


*Whilst TV license payment evasion only carries a fine or community penalty, you could, in theory, be imprisoned for wilful refusal to pay the fine.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Posted this before.

Absolutely yes.

 

[seagull_in_malaysia]

Why does the TV licence just go to the BBC instead of all TV providers? I feel that if the BBC want to charge for their content they should become a subscription-based provider rather than forcing people who have a TV to pay them.

 

[thisistips]

It is fantastic value. I'd pay it for five live alone, or for the Internet.

 

[Bry Nylon]

It is fantastic value. I'd pay it for five live alone, or for the Internet.

100% this all day long. Its about 40p a day. TV, radio, online content, covering just about every subject imaginable with content and production values that are respected and envied the world over. 40p a day!
I'd defy anybody to find anything that represents better value than the BBC.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Why does the TV licence just go to the BBC instead of all TV providers? I feel that if the BBC want to charge for their content they should become a subscription-based provider rather than forcing people who have a TV to pay them.

The licence fee approach allows the BBC to develop content that may not be immediately popular, or maybe just niche stuff or certain programmes that a commercial channel simply wouldn't be able to. A subscription channel wouldn't be able to broadcast the Proms season for example as they would be under pressure to use that airtime for something more popular. The good thing about the BBC model is that for 40p a day they will at least try to do something for everybody, so far as that is possible.