BBC licence fee poll.
Poll: BBC licence fee poll.
Total Members Polled: 1030
Discussion
bristolracer said:
Change it from a licence to a subscription and make iplayer available only to those prepared to pay the subscription.
Why should those who pay the licence fee subsidise programmes for the "dont watch live" mob
Why should anyone subscribe to repeats, which is effectively what iPlayer is? Why should those who pay the licence fee subsidise programmes for the "dont watch live" mob
Surely those who watch 'live' TV should pay for the privilege?
The BBC has many faults but it is a fine broadcaster and is renowned the world over.
People in many countries cannot believe that some in the UK would like to be rid of the BBC.
I for one would not like what we'd get in its place...the likes of Murdoch ruling the roost, adverts every few minutes, charging the Earth for a terribly biased service (and the BBC DOES go out of its way not to be biased, it doesn't always get it right but it mostly does). No programmes, TV or radio, would get made unless it was commercially viable to do so, so say hello to even more X-Factor style rubbish.
There are many challenges within the BBC and parts of it do need to modernise, improve and cut costs, but overall it is the finest broadcasting organisation in the world, and we should be championing that and shouting it from the rooftops for the world to see, not hoping for its demise.
I can think of more than a dozen TV shows that I would happily pay the licence fee for individually.
The entire BBC Radio service is again worth the licence fee just on its own.
Be careful what you wish for.
People in many countries cannot believe that some in the UK would like to be rid of the BBC.
I for one would not like what we'd get in its place...the likes of Murdoch ruling the roost, adverts every few minutes, charging the Earth for a terribly biased service (and the BBC DOES go out of its way not to be biased, it doesn't always get it right but it mostly does). No programmes, TV or radio, would get made unless it was commercially viable to do so, so say hello to even more X-Factor style rubbish.
There are many challenges within the BBC and parts of it do need to modernise, improve and cut costs, but overall it is the finest broadcasting organisation in the world, and we should be championing that and shouting it from the rooftops for the world to see, not hoping for its demise.
I can think of more than a dozen TV shows that I would happily pay the licence fee for individually.
The entire BBC Radio service is again worth the licence fee just on its own.
Be careful what you wish for.
eccles said:
MarshPhantom said:
Crush said:
GrumpyTwig said:
I stopped paying it a good year or two ago, don't miss it at all. Don't like a lot of British TV and really dislike just about every piece of BBC programming.
When visiting my parents and having the pleasure of live TV broadcasts, we realise just how bad British TV is.
We don't miss it at all. Far happier with the likes of Netflix
Do you watch anything on Netflix that was produced by the BBC?
Have not had a TV since 2006 , so pay no license. Still see quite a bit of TV at relatives, but its not missed by self.
If there is something I do want to watch, then its usually on a catch up service. I would not mind Discovery, national Geographic etc but am not paying for the Sky AND the BBc just to get such. Not value for money.
Appears fibre broadband has just been installed in the village , so may give Netflix a go . Won't have to fund the grasping BBc in doing so, so could be a vfm move .
If there is something I do want to watch, then its usually on a catch up service. I would not mind Discovery, national Geographic etc but am not paying for the Sky AND the BBc just to get such. Not value for money.
Appears fibre broadband has just been installed in the village , so may give Netflix a go . Won't have to fund the grasping BBc in doing so, so could be a vfm move .
chris watton said:
I assume you're left-leaning - if that's the case, it's only natural that you think it's great.
I don't care much for Murdoch or anyone else for that matter, but as far as I know, I am not forced by threat of fines and possible imprisonment if I renege on my SKY or Amazon Prime subs - but I am expected to help fund the crap you lap up as long as I watch live broadcasts that aren't even BBC-related!
That's because the licence fee is in reality just a form of taxation that is specifically used to fund the state broadcaster, a concept I do not object to.I don't care much for Murdoch or anyone else for that matter, but as far as I know, I am not forced by threat of fines and possible imprisonment if I renege on my SKY or Amazon Prime subs - but I am expected to help fund the crap you lap up as long as I watch live broadcasts that aren't even BBC-related!
I appreciate some don't watch or listen to the BBC, however, I don't see this as any different to other situations. For instance, I don't have any children and never will, however I am fully aware that some of the general taxation I pay is used to fund schools. I have no problem with this because overall it is of benefit to the society in which I live. The BBC is of overall benefit.
I'm not a Murdoch hater either, I do buy some of his company's services, but I would not want his company or any similar one to be entrusted with the role the BBC currently has.
Incidentally I thought legally a TV license was now required for use of live streaming services - I see no reason why this shouldn't be extended to encompass general of use of the brilliant iPlayer facilities. It can't be beyond the realms of technical capability to have iPlayer require a login that's tied to an active TV license.
Cheese Mechanic said:
Have not had a TV since 2006 , so pay no license. Still see quite a bit of TV at relatives, but its not missed by self.
If there is something I do want to watch, then its usually on a catch up service. I would not mind Discovery, national Geographic etc but am not paying for the Sky AND the BBc just to get such. Not value for money.
Appears fibre broadband has just been installed in the village , so may give Netflix a go . Won't have to fund the grasping BBc in doing so, so could be a vfm move .
Grasping? Have you seen Sky's prices recently?If there is something I do want to watch, then its usually on a catch up service. I would not mind Discovery, national Geographic etc but am not paying for the Sky AND the BBc just to get such. Not value for money.
Appears fibre broadband has just been installed in the village , so may give Netflix a go . Won't have to fund the grasping BBc in doing so, so could be a vfm move .
zarjaz1991 said:
The BBC has many faults but it is a fine broadcaster and is renowned the world over.
People in many countries cannot believe that some in the UK would like to be rid of the BBC.
I for one would not like what we'd get in its place...the likes of Murdoch ruling the roost, adverts every few minutes, charging the Earth for a terribly biased service (and the BBC DOES go out of its way not to be biased, it doesn't always get it right but it mostly does). No programmes, TV or radio, would get made unless it was commercially viable to do so, so say hello to even more X-Factor style rubbish.
There are many challenges within the BBC and parts of it do need to modernise, improve and cut costs, but overall it is the finest broadcasting organisation in the world, and we should be championing that and shouting it from the rooftops for the world to see, not hoping for its demise.
I can think of more than a dozen TV shows that I would happily pay the licence fee for individually.
The entire BBC Radio service is again worth the licence fee just on its own.
Be careful what you wish for.
Thats fine, you exercise your freedom of choice to pay for the BBc . Please do allow those who do not wish to, and wish to watch competitors services, to choose not too. People in many countries cannot believe that some in the UK would like to be rid of the BBC.
I for one would not like what we'd get in its place...the likes of Murdoch ruling the roost, adverts every few minutes, charging the Earth for a terribly biased service (and the BBC DOES go out of its way not to be biased, it doesn't always get it right but it mostly does). No programmes, TV or radio, would get made unless it was commercially viable to do so, so say hello to even more X-Factor style rubbish.
There are many challenges within the BBC and parts of it do need to modernise, improve and cut costs, but overall it is the finest broadcasting organisation in the world, and we should be championing that and shouting it from the rooftops for the world to see, not hoping for its demise.
I can think of more than a dozen TV shows that I would happily pay the licence fee for individually.
The entire BBC Radio service is again worth the licence fee just on its own.
Be careful what you wish for.
zarjaz1991 said:
The BBC has many faults but it is a fine broadcaster and is renowned the world over...
It's been trading on that past reputation for quite some time now, helped by the World Service (ironically I believe unavailable to watch in the UK) which I've always found better (less biased, more rounded) than the service we get. I think they should slash the fee to a third or less and get back to the core of what it used to do well.zarjaz1991 said:
The BBC has many faults but it is a fine broadcaster and is renowned the world over.
People in many countries cannot believe that some in the UK would like to be rid of the BBC.
I for one would not like what we'd get in its place...the likes of Murdoch ruling the roost, adverts every few minutes, charging the Earth for a terribly biased service (and the BBC DOES go out of its way not to be biased, it doesn't always get it right but it mostly does). No programmes, TV or radio, would get made unless it was commercially viable to do so, so say hello to even more X-Factor style rubbish.
There are many challenges within the BBC and parts of it do need to modernise, improve and cut costs, but overall it is the finest broadcasting organisation in the world, and we should be championing that and shouting it from the rooftops for the world to see, not hoping for its demise.
I can think of more than a dozen TV shows that I would happily pay the licence fee for individually.
The entire BBC Radio service is again worth the licence fee just on its own.
Be careful what you wish for.
This.People in many countries cannot believe that some in the UK would like to be rid of the BBC.
I for one would not like what we'd get in its place...the likes of Murdoch ruling the roost, adverts every few minutes, charging the Earth for a terribly biased service (and the BBC DOES go out of its way not to be biased, it doesn't always get it right but it mostly does). No programmes, TV or radio, would get made unless it was commercially viable to do so, so say hello to even more X-Factor style rubbish.
There are many challenges within the BBC and parts of it do need to modernise, improve and cut costs, but overall it is the finest broadcasting organisation in the world, and we should be championing that and shouting it from the rooftops for the world to see, not hoping for its demise.
I can think of more than a dozen TV shows that I would happily pay the licence fee for individually.
The entire BBC Radio service is again worth the licence fee just on its own.
Be careful what you wish for.
I wouldn't object to the subscription model as long as the BBC's remit and constitution remains the same, and there's still no commercial adverts.
What people who are in favour of this option often want though, is for the BBC to become an optional subscription service, but at current licence fee costs. That won't be the case, the price would jump significantly.
The current arrangement is a bargain. I think the way it's managed needs improvement (needs to encompass online content) and the Capita idiots (the company that sends the stroppy letters) need putting back in their box and the job given to someone competent.
What people who are in favour of this option often want though, is for the BBC to become an optional subscription service, but at current licence fee costs. That won't be the case, the price would jump significantly.
The current arrangement is a bargain. I think the way it's managed needs improvement (needs to encompass online content) and the Capita idiots (the company that sends the stroppy letters) need putting back in their box and the job given to someone competent.
zarjaz1991 said:
Grasping? Have you seen Sky's prices recently?
A Sky subscription involves freedom of choice , nobody who wishes to watch a live broadcast is forced to fund it. The BBC is funded by state backed force, if you want to watch any live broadcast by any supplier you MUST fund the BBC . The fact of that state backed force , is what really pisses me off re the BBC, no freedom of choice if you have the cheek to wish to view competitiors live broadcasts..
Cheese Mechanic said:
Thats fine, you exercise your freedom of choice to pay for the BBc . Please do allow those who do not wish to, and wish to watch competitors services, to choose not too.
I don't have children. Can I exercise my freedom of choice not to pay the part of my taxes that funds schools and education? I have no wish to use such services.Cheese Mechanic said:
A Sky subscription involves freedom of choice , nobody who wishes to watch a live broadcast is forced to fund it. The BBC is funded by state backed force, if you want to watch any live broadcast by any supplier you MUST fund the BBC .
The fact of that state backed force , is what really pisses me off re the BBC, no freedom of choice if you have the cheek to wish to view competitiors live broadcasts..
This is because it is a state broadcaster, as distinct from private commercial broadcasters such as Sky.The fact of that state backed force , is what really pisses me off re the BBC, no freedom of choice if you have the cheek to wish to view competitiors live broadcasts..
I guess if you don't accept the need for a state broadcaster then it's a tricky pill to swallow, but without the BBC you're leaving the country open to the often dubious antics of ruthless, powerful commercial broadcasters. I'm afraid I genuinely fear what we'd end up with Murdoch is very obviously biased in whatever direction he happens to choose and you would have absolutely no counter balance to that at all. No thanks.
Again I'm not saying the BBC is perfect by any means, nor am I denying that reform of at least parts of it is necessary, but getting rid of it? That is a truly scary prospect.
zarjaz1991 said:
This is because it is a state broadcaster, as distinct from private commercial broadcasters such as Sky.
I guess if you don't accept the need for a state broadcaster then it's a tricky pill to swallow, but without the BBC you're leaving the country open to the often dubious antics of ruthless, powerful commercial broadcasters. I'm afraid I genuinely fear what we'd end up with Murdoch is very obviously biased in whatever direction he happens to choose and you would have absolutely no counter balance to that at all. No thanks.
Again I'm not saying the BBC is perfect by any means, nor am I denying that reform of at least parts of it is necessary, but getting rid of it? That is a truly scary prospect.
Hysterical nonsense. There is a good argument that the World service should be funded from taxation, as it projects our imagery as a nation to the world at large. Its not difficult to imagine it gives a very positive of the UK abroad. I guess if you don't accept the need for a state broadcaster then it's a tricky pill to swallow, but without the BBC you're leaving the country open to the often dubious antics of ruthless, powerful commercial broadcasters. I'm afraid I genuinely fear what we'd end up with Murdoch is very obviously biased in whatever direction he happens to choose and you would have absolutely no counter balance to that at all. No thanks.
Again I'm not saying the BBC is perfect by any means, nor am I denying that reform of at least parts of it is necessary, but getting rid of it? That is a truly scary prospect.
As for the rest of it? It does nothing others cannot do. Absolutley no justification whatsoever to be funded by state sanction.
Cheese Mechanic said:
Absurd analogy. The BBC is not an essential service, its a media company, like many others.
That's from your perspective. I would argue that an unbiased state broadcaster, free from political or commercial interference or bias, *is* an essential service.The BBC has special remits within its charter, such as to inform and educate. A company like Sky has only one remit - to make a huge profit for its owner.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff