TV licence, is it time that it was abolished? - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
Poll Room You got it, just random polls in here

View Poll Results: Should the TV licence be abolished?
Yes it should be abolished 15 45.45%
No it should be kept. 14 42.42%
Other, because there has to be an other... 4 12.12%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
(Post Link) post #1 of 77 Old 20-12-13 Thread Starter
Status: zzzzzzzz
AO Platinum Member
 
symon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Oxfordshire
Posts: 37,013
Crazed TV licence, is it time that it was abolished?

Is it time that the TV licence was abolished and why?

In the past the BBC has made some excellent, classic programs but in my opinion most of what they show now is utter rubbish.

Should be keep paying this fee in this day and age?
symon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
VO2Max
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In effect, what you're saying is that the BBC should be abolished?

Do you think other broadcasters make better programmes across the board? If so, why, and who are they?
 
Status: I'm not really here
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Club Member Number: 59
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 76,926
Garage
No.
steveisfrowning is offline  
crazycarb
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I expect that the TV licence is just another tax like car tax etc. and really just goes into the big pot. If you abolish it, you'd need an alternative...
 
Status: Petrol head
AO Platinum Member
 
cue2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Kent
Posts: 31,403
We pay twice , for the licence and the Virgin account. Still , the BBC money now gets distributed to Salford quays instead of all staying in London .
cue2 is offline  
(Post Link) post #6 of 77 Old 20-12-13 Thread Starter
Status: zzzzzzzz
AO Platinum Member
 
symon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Oxfordshire
Posts: 37,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by VO2Max View Post
In effect, what you're saying is that the BBC should be abolished?

Do you think other broadcasters make better programmes across the board? If so, why, and who are they?
Yes I am saying that, or at least it's current form should be dramatically changed. It wouldn't bother me if they have adverts as there are adverts everywhere else.

Sky make better programs, the F1 coverage for a start.

Yes we have to pay for that, but that is in addition to what we pay to the BBC. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

ITV make good programs, as do Ch4, occasionally Ch5 and there are loads of others on freeview.

If the BBC ever make anything worthwhile such as the Brain Cox wonders series I usually buy it on DVD or Blu-Ray anyway.


The BBC ditching the full F1 coverage is basically what has turned me against it.
symon is offline  
Status: I'm not really here
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Club Member Number: 59
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 76,926
Garage
oh FFS

we;ve done this
steveisfrowning is offline  
Status: -
AO Gold Member
 
chrishendrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: United Kingdom
County: Greater London
Posts: 10,893
Ecclestone for DG.
chrishendrix is offline  
VO2Max
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycarb View Post
I expect that the TV licence is just another tax like car tax etc. and really just goes into the big pot. If you abolish it, you'd need an alternative...
No, all the licence fee goes to the BBC.

However, the BBC are asked to do more and more with a falling-in-real-terms amount at every renewal.
 
VO2Max
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveisfrowning View Post
oh FFS

we've done this
To death Steve, you're right. But there's nothing new under the sun .

Quote:
Originally Posted by symon View Post
Yes I am saying that, or at least it's current form should be dramatically changed. It wouldn't bother me if they have adverts as there are adverts everywhere else.

Sky make better programs, the F1 coverage for a start.

Yes we have to pay for that, but that is in addition to what we pay to the BBC. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

ITV make good programs, as do Ch4, occasionally Ch5 and there are loads of others on freeview.

If the BBC ever make anything worthwhile such as the Brain Cox wonders series I usually buy it on DVD or Blu-Ray anyway.


The BBC ditching the full F1 coverage is basically what has turned me against it.
So basically, your whole premise is that the BBC got outbid for the F1 coverage - you can't watch it on the BBC any more so why should you pay the licence fee?

There is very little difference in whatever channel gets to cover the F1. It's basically covering an OB event, you don't conceive, write and produce it, it's there and you turn up and cover it. It's not exactly the pinnacle of TV, is it?

And do you really think the ITV channels are free? Who pays for them - you do. Every time you buy a bar of chocolate, every time you buy some soap powder, every time you take out a loan with Wonga, you pay for ITV, whether you like it or not. Not only that, there's no accountability and you have no influence over what gets made and shown, beyond pure ratings-led programming.

There isn't enough advertising revenue to go round, so the BBC having ads would kill off ITV, as well as itself. This would leave that fine upstanding figure of truth and integrity - Rupert Murdoch - to grasp the nettle of public service broadcasting for the greater good. For another example of his ethical ethos, take a look at his newspapers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrishendrix View Post
Ecclestone for DG.
After recent appointments, I can see why you would say that Chris .
 
Status: Petrol head
AO Platinum Member
 
cue2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: United Kingdom
County: Kent
Posts: 31,403
There is export revenue for their shows BBC News - Exports of British shows raise £1.2bn
cue2 is offline  
VO2Max
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
That includes shows like Downton which is on ITV of course but yes, BBC Worldwide does provide revenues for the BBC, on top of the licence fee.

Sadly, many big BBC shows which get sold abroad are co-productions, often with US broadcasters. As an English-speaking producer of programmes, the BBC can never compete with the US, their economies of scale with their huge home market far outweigh the BBC.

So the US can easily produce lavish, expensive shows which will clean up at home and then go on to recoup all their costs (and more) by sales abroad, whereas the BBC can come up with an idea, but will need a lot of outside investment to produce the show well enough to make it saleable abroad.

A bit like the British film industry.
 
(Post Link) post #13 of 77 Old 21-12-13 Thread Starter
Status: zzzzzzzz
AO Platinum Member
 
symon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: United Kingdom
County: Oxfordshire
Posts: 37,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by VO2Max View Post
To death Steve, you're right. But there's nothing new under the sun .



So basically, your whole premise is that the BBC got outbid for the F1 coverage - you can't watch it on the BBC any more so why should you pay the licence fee?
The BBC wasn't outbid for the F1 coverage. they bid an amount and it was accepted, then they did a deal with sky so that sky could show all of the races instead.

Maybe if they couldn't afford to show the races they shouldn't have bid in the first place.
symon is offline  
VO2Max
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I don't follow F1 - but you're saying the BBC get to show them as well as Sky?

If that's the case, licence-fee payers get to see it without a Sky subscription and it cost less than exclusive coverage.
 
VO2Max
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Apparently this is the deal: The BBC will be providing live coverage of nine F1 races, across all its platforms (TV, Radio, online). For the remainder, there will be extended highlights on television and full live coverage on radio and online.

Sounds like a compromise where the BBC paid a lot less than for exclusive coverage of the whole lot. And of course, the same applies to Sky who also paid less than for complete exclusivity.

Sports coverage doesn't come cheap these days, even Sky have their limits.
 
Status: Busy busy busy!
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Pud237's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 71
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cumbria
Posts: 44,807
I've always been of the opinion that the legal requirement to pay a fee to the BBC if you own a TV, even if you don't watch BBC programming, is unfair. For 4 years while living in shared accommodation I didn't pay but since living with the Mrs she makes sure the fee is paid as she doesn't want all the harassment that comes with not paying, such as threatening letters & having to tell people that turn up on the doorstep to go away.

If the only argument for keeping it is the public service broadcasting the BBC offers, I'm sure that side of the BBC could be retained, but I don't see why an effectively state-funded BBC needs to be competing with commercial channels to make TV entertainment.

BTW I probably watch around 1 hour of live broadcast TV a week, I'm a very light user so for me any TV subscription offers poor value for money. Thankfully I can opt out of Sky, BT and all the others but its a shame I can't opt out of the BBC!
Pud237 is offline  
VO2Max
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Albeit a completely different entity, in some ways the BBC is similar to the NHS - you might not use it (a lot, or at all) but it's there if you need it. And the vast majority of people do use it, and get good value for money from it. It could be argued that it's a national asset in this way.

It's a well-known fact that to be viable and relevant, the BBC needs to show a broad spectrum of programmes. The vast majority of people in this country do get VFM from the BBC. I totally take on board the viewpoint of 'if I don't watch it, why should I pay for it?' But if the BBC were to become just a provider of 'worthy' and news programming, very few people would watch it, and it would wither and die, make no mistake. Sky understand this and have frequently called for this to happen - because they know what the result would be. They would clean up. They have also stated that all the BBC's archive of popular programming from down the years should be made available to Sky.

So what, I hear people cry. Well if you didn't have the BBC, consider the alternatives. Growing dominance of Sky with only ITV complying with a public service remit.
 
Status: Busy busy busy!
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Pud237's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 71
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cumbria
Posts: 44,807
There is Virgin & BT competing in the market place too, its not just Sky. I do share your concerns about Sky & Murdoch though, I don't see why the man feels the need to gain so much influence in society. If I was him I'd just go and enjoy spending my money on having a good time. I can't use Sky as a reason to support the license fee though - its like seeing the invading Soviets as a reason to support the Taliban. (Hope you can forgive the terrible analogy!)
Pud237 is offline  
Status: Busy busy busy!
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Pud237's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 71
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cumbria
Posts: 44,807
Do you think if the BBC went subscription only, at the same cost as the current license fee, how many people would opt of receiving all BBC programming to save from paying the fee?
Pud237 is offline  
VO2Max
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Virgin and BT are completely different beasts from Sky - they are pretty well just 'platforms' from which you can view stuff from BBC, ITV, Sky, Eurosport etc. Sky are a programme provider and news provider, as well as being a platform. And of course, part of the NewsInternational media empire.

If the BBC were a subscription service as you suggest, quite a few people would opt out. There would be a lot less money and the services would suffer badly. So a lot more people would drop out. Same scenario as going 'worthy' - the BBC would wither and die.

It's not just the programmes, it's do you want a BBC? Of course, there needs to be plenty of good programmes to justify its existence! But life would be very different without a BBC

It's not just the threat from Sky which justifies the BBC licence fee of course, there are all the other reasons I outlined above.

The BBC is a national resource and a national treasure. And despite what people say about its 'politics', it's the closest thing we get to a truly neutral, independent and fair provider of information and sometimes, opinion.

You play with it at your peril. Successive govts - while sticking the boot in on several occasions - have recognised this and after starting out with the intention of doing away with it or commercialising it, have pretty well left it alone. If they have any sense, they fear life without it.

And they have recognised too, that it only really works if everyone pays into it. From a financial point of view, and also from the point of view that if everyone pays, everyone has a stake in it. If everyone pays, everyone pays a little. And yes, it is a little if you look at the alternatives.
 
VO2Max
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I do actually wonder if the licence fee is the best solution. In Australia, their 'BBC' (ABC) is funded directly from taxation. I don't see that the licence fee really makes the BBC any more independent from govt, seeing as the govt of the day set the level of the licence fee at the end of any particular Royal Charter period.

The thing about the licence fee I guess, is that you pay your £145 every year and you have to think about paying for it, rather than just having an invisible amount taken out of your tax contribution. You never forget that you pay for it!

And of course, maybe the BBC should be funded from tax revenue anyway, on an ability to pay basis?

I really don't know!
 
Status: T-5 Days to Unicorn Paradise
AO Platinum Member
 
TheGrimJeeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: France
County: Riviera
Posts: 38,319
Yawn.

Every country in Europe has this. Except they have to watch adverts on the public channels too.

Just be thankful you don't have to pay 500 of your English pounds a year to watch a couple of shows you like.

The only reason this "story" keeps raising its head is because the print arm of other media concerns
keep putting the boot in due to their masters being scared of the Beebs reputation for good programming and it's big back catalogue.

Why do you think project Kangaroo got assassinated?
TheGrimJeeper is offline  
Status: Busy busy busy!
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Pud237's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 71
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cumbria
Posts: 44,807
It is true that a flat rate fee hits the poorest hardest. But I think shifting the cost of the BBC from every TV owner equally to those that pay the most tax seems unfair to me, in the same way I think it unfair to make everyone who owns a TV pay for it.

Do you really think turning the BBC subscription only would mean its death? Why couldn't it compete with Sky on a level playing field? I don't think it comes down to the quality of programming, I would probably rank BBC's programming higher than most other stuff. At the end of the day if it is making the programs that people want to watch, then people will subscribe and it will be a success. It would also be free to do whatever else it can do to generate more income, such as sell advertising slots.

Why is Sky doing so well? After all it is very expensive.
Pud237 is offline  
Status: Busy busy busy!
Club Member
Membro Premio
 
Pud237's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 71
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: United Kingdom
County: Cumbria
Posts: 44,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippecanoe View Post
Yawn.

Every country in Europe has this. Except they have to watch adverts on the public channels too.

Just be thankful you don't have to pay 500 of your English pounds a year to watch a couple of shows you like.

The only reason this "story" keeps raising its head is because the print arm of other media concerns
keep putting the boot in due to their masters being scared of the Beebs reputation for good programming and it's big back catalogue.

Why do you think project Kangaroo got assassinated?
If the discussion bores you there are plenty of other threads you can go and read, I find this an interesting debate.

The print arms of other media concerns putting the boot in is one reason why this story keeps raising its head, another reason is that there are a large amount of people in this country that don't watch BBC TV and resent having to pay the license fee. Just because people in other countries pay more to watch other PBS channels doesn't really have any relevance.
Pud237 is offline  
VO2Max
Status: - Update
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Pud, you haven't really answered my point about the BBC being a national resource or 'treasure', a bit like the NHS. Maybe you don't agree with this analogy? If you don't fair enough. But if you agree it is, there's probably no real alternative to having the BBC funded by everyone, for the benefit of everyone.

Sky are doing so well - partly - because they have the power and inclination to crush competitors. Thatcher allowed them to break the law by funding themselves illegally with money from NewsInternational newspapers. This allowed them to kill off BSB (British Satellite Broadcasting...the guys with the 'squarials') virtually at birth. They paid f'all tax for years too, while they built themselves up into the leviathan they are now. Many of their big shows are made in the US by Fox (NewsCorp) and I don't imagine for one minute they pay the going rate to show them. Like for like, Sky have no real competitors. Other platforms (Virgin, BT) may buy their shows but Sky have the buying power to buy up films and sports, and then sell them on for a (even bigger) profit. It may surprise you to know that Sky's revenues were outstripping the licence fee as far back as 3 years ago. Sky also own the satellite from which they broadcast (or at least a big part of it, I don't know the full details). So anyone else broadcasting on the Astra satellite pays those guys to be on the platform, including the BBC, ITV, etc.

Sky are incredibly powerful. We've seen that so much power in the hands of someone like Murdoch, is a very bad thing for democracy. It goes that deep.

The BBC couldn't compete with Sky for the simple reason that they're coming from two very different starting points.

And I think the fact that PBS costs a lot more in some other countries does have relevance. Because the same would probably happen here. So that only the TV viewing 'elite' would be able to have it.

Be careful what you wish for, because the resulting alternatives may not be what you want.
 
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Misc Lounges > Community Discussions > Poll Room

Tags
abolished , licence , time

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome