BBC licence fee poll.

[Nothingtoseehere]

TTwiggy said:

Can we get some sort of definitive handle on what the issue is about the fee?

Is it that is exists at all?

Is it that it is enforced with threats?

Is it the cost?

Is it that it's used to fund the BBC?

Is it something else?

Yes.

[chrispmartha]

Cotty said:

chrispmartha said:

No, by looking at what other countries get in return for paying their broadcast license

Its not really relevant as I don't live in other countries.

Ok ignoring the BBC what is the purpose of a broadcast license and what does the purchaser get for it?

The ability to watch live TV, it is relevant because you would more than likely still have to pay a broadcast license even without the BBC, just like those other countries

[TTwiggy]

Nothingtoseehere said:

TTwiggy said:

Can we get some sort of definitive handle on what the issue is about the fee?

Is it that is exists at all?

Is it that it is enforced with threats?

Is it the cost?

Is it that it's used to fund the BBC?

Is it something else?

Yes.

TLDR.

[technodup]

TTwiggy said:

It's amazing that the issue of paying a licence fee was such a non-issue for so many years. It's almost as if a foreign media-mogul billionaire had spent the last 25-30 years utilising the reach of his print media to attack the main competitor for his broadcast empire.

It's never crossed your mind that 30 years ago we had hee haw in the way of options? It was your basic four channels.

Now? We have free telly (Youtube), subscription telly (Sky), PPV telly (Sky/others), subscription telly (Netflix/Amazon) and probably others.

Consumer choice might not be a thing in your house but me? I like it. We don't need the BBC, fewer of us want the BBC, and more don't want to pay the BBC when we choose to watch AN Other broadcaster.

TTwiggy said:

If you have equipment in your home capable of receiving live broadcast signals then you need a licence for it.

Incorrect.

[TTwiggy]

technodup said:

TTwiggy said:

It's amazing that the issue of paying a licence fee was such a non-issue for so many years. It's almost as if a foreign media-mogul billionaire had spent the last 25-30 years utilising the reach of his print media to attack the main competitor for his broadcast empire.

It's never crossed your mind that 30 years ago we had hee haw in the way of options? It was your basic four channels.

Now? We have free telly (Youtube), subscription telly (Sky), PPV telly (Sky/others), subscription telly (Netflix/Amazon) and probably others.

Consumer choice might not be a thing in your house but me? I like it. We don't need the BBC, fewer of us want the BBC, and more don't want to pay the BBC when we choose to watch AN Other broadcaster.

Good for you. I have Sky, Netflix and Amazon at home. Horse for courses really, but I still believe that the most consistent quality plus diversity of programming, comes from the BBC.

Are you really denying the Murdoch connection to the furore over the license fee?

[technodup]

TTwiggy said:

Good for you. I have Sky, Netflix and Amazon at home. Horse for courses really, but I still believe that the most consistent quality plus diversity of programming, comes from the BBC.

That's great. I disagree.

Explain to me why I should pay for what you like when I'm quite happy with what I like.

[chrispmartha]

technodup said:

TTwiggy said:

Good for you. I have Sky, Netflix and Amazon at home. Horse for courses really, but I still believe that the most consistent quality plus diversity of programming, comes from the BBC.

That's great. I disagree.

Explain to me why I should pay for what you like when I'm quite happy with what I like.

Because that's life and what happens with taxes, as i said earlier 6p in every pound of your council tax goes on arts & recreation, do you personally get good value from that?

Anyone that oays for Sky pays for things they may not watch or even subscribe to

[technodup]

chrispmartha said:

Anyone that oays for Sky pays for things they may not watch or even subscribe to

Quite possibly, but they don't get threatened with jail if they don't subscribe. That's their choice.

We don't NEED the BBC. I don't see why we should be paying for it. (Not that I do).

I'd prefer that many more decisions are left to the individual. I will never believe that the state knows best how to spend MY money.

[Cotty]

TTwiggy said:

Can we get some sort of definitive handle on what the issue is about the fee?

Is it that is exists at all? Yes

Is it that it is enforced with threats? Yes

Is it the cost? Yes

Is it that it's used to fund the BBC? not really

Is it something else?No

[Cotty]

chrispmartha said:

Cotty said:

chrispmartha said:

No, by looking at what other countries get in return for paying their broadcast license

Its not really relevant as I don't live in other countries.

Ok ignoring the BBC what is the purpose of a broadcast license and what does the purchaser get for it?

The ability to watch live TV, it is relevant because you would more than likely still have to pay a broadcast license even without the BBC, just like those other countries

But everyone has the ability to watch TV without a licence. If you did away with the licence people would still have the ability to watch TV. It doesn't actually DO anything, its just a charge for no reason.

[Randy Winkman]

The Crack Fox said:

I'd pay the fee for BBC Radio 6 music alone.

Me too. And I really mean it. My whole life is accompanied by a 6Music soundtrack.

[anonymous-user]

TTwiggy said:

Can we get some sort of definitive handle on what the issue is about the fee?

Is it that is exists at all?

Is it that it is enforced with threats?

Is it the cost?

Is it that it's used to fund the BBC?

Is it something else?

That the BBC thinks it's a good idea to give Chris Evans £2.25 million of licence fee payers money to present a radio show five times a week.
If you think he deserves that fair enough, I don't so I don't watch tele as I don't want to fund him by buying a licence. That's my opinion not gonna argue the toss with someone who thinks he's worth it just ends up in a stalemate.

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[Scrubs]

TTwiggy said:

If you have equipment in your home capable of receiving live broadcast signals then you need a licence for it.

No, you 100% don't.

Stop spreading bullst.

[Cotty]

Love the title "The £147 BBC licence fee is a tax on the poor to pay for Chris Evans’ latest Ferrari"

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4089577/the-147-bbc-...

[TTwiggy]

Scrubs said:

TTwiggy said:

If you have equipment in your home capable of receiving live broadcast signals then you need a licence for it.

No, you 100% don't.

Stop spreading bullst.

Did it occur to you that maybe I was just mistaken or had phrased my post slightly wrong? And as such there's really no need to be so fking rude?

[technodup]

TTwiggy said:

Scrubs said:

TTwiggy said:

If you have equipment in your home capable of receiving live broadcast signals then you need a licence for it.

No, you 100% don't.

Stop spreading bullst.

Did it occur to you that maybe I was just mistaken or had phrased my post slightly wrong? And as such there's really no need to be so fking rude?

Words matter. Especially in this instance when there's so much misinformation bandied about. Capita's sales goons are known to misrepresent the facts, TV detector vans are watching you etc etc.

[TTwiggy]

technodup said:

TTwiggy said:

Scrubs said:

TTwiggy said:

If you have equipment in your home capable of receiving live broadcast signals then you need a licence for it.

No, you 100% don't.

Stop spreading bullst.

Did it occur to you that maybe I was just mistaken or had phrased my post slightly wrong? And as such there's really no need to be so fking rude?

Words matter. Especially in this instance when there's so much misinformation bandied about. Capita's sales goons are known to misrepresent the facts, TV detector vans are watching you etc etc.

Right. Are you suggesting that poster above me thinks that I've carefully constructed an online presence here, for about a decade, just to trick someone into paying tv licence fine?

[RumbleOfThunder]

TTwiggy said:

technodup said:

TTwiggy said:

It's amazing that the issue of paying a licence fee was such a non-issue for so many years. It's almost as if a foreign media-mogul billionaire had spent the last 25-30 years utilising the reach of his print media to attack the main competitor for his broadcast empire.

It's never crossed your mind that 30 years ago we had hee haw in the way of options? It was your basic four channels.

Now? We have free telly (Youtube), subscription telly (Sky), PPV telly (Sky/others), subscription telly (Netflix/Amazon) and probably others.

Consumer choice might not be a thing in your house but me? I like it. We don't need the BBC, fewer of us want the BBC, and more don't want to pay the BBC when we choose to watch AN Other broadcaster.

Good for you. I have Sky, Netflix and Amazon at home. Horse for courses really, but I still believe that the most consistent quality plus diversity of programming, comes from the BBC.

Are you really denying the Murdoch connection to the furore over the license fee?

Well to say that's subjective is an understatement. It's besides the point anyway, peoples contention is that we're forced to subsidise the BBC even if you have no intention of using their services. It's simply indefensible to force me to pay the BBC because I want to watch Sky Movies or Soccer Saturday. It's a corrupt racket that needs putting out of it's misery. If the BBC is so good, it should be able to survive in the marketplace.

[TTwiggy]

RumbleOfThunder said:

If the BBC is so good, it should be able to survive in the marketplace.

Do you get this as a free cut-n-paste from Murdoch Towers?

I keep hearing this, and the thing is the BBC would be fine 'in the marketplace'. But it wouldn't produce such a wide range of programming and it would be full of adverts. You may feel that this would be an improvement, I would disagree, and away from the pages of NP&E, many people would agree with me.