Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?

Discussion in 'books, films, TV, radio & writing' started by weltweit, May 10, 2019.

?

Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?

  1. I would like the Licence fee completely abolished?

    15 vote(s)
    28.3%
  2. I would like the licence fee to only apply for using BBC content

    8 vote(s)
    15.1%
  3. I would like the BBC to be fully funded by adverts

    2 vote(s)
    3.8%
  4. I currently pay the licence fee, I receive TV so I have to

    19 vote(s)
    35.8%
  5. I currently don't pay the licence fee and am not obliged to

    11 vote(s)
    20.8%
  6. The licence fee is just too much, I would happily pay if it was 50% the current level

    4 vote(s)
    7.5%
  7. I am happy to pay but the revenue should be split with all broadcasters

    2 vote(s)
    3.8%
  8. I could have thought up way better poll questions, weltweit you suck!

    15 vote(s)
    28.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. andysays

    andysays Defiantly non-premium member

    I've heard that argument, but many people already regard it as the government's mouthpiece, which to some extent it undeniable is. Given the huge increase in sources of information since the BBC was set up, I don't think that's nearly as persuasive an argument as it once was.

    And the benefits of switching to funding from taxation definitely outweigh the arguments against, IMO
     
  2. mx wcfc

    mx wcfc Well-Known Member

    But you never hear the end of whinging now either.
    If we all pay the licence fee, it is no different from general taxation, except that the poor pay more as a proportion of their income.
    At the moment the pensioners exemption is used a a tool to buy votes.
    And the bbc is still right wing biased.
    I could put up with whinging about bbc bias if it actually was left wing!
     
  3. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    As long as there is genuine plurality of media, I don't have a massive problem with state media being obviously biased. In a way, the BBC is quite dishonestly biased atm because it pretends it isn't. As I said above, my favourite bit of the BBC pretty much is the World Service, which is directly funded, but that's a bit of a special case.

    I suspect, though, that a switch to direct funding would mean a dramatic shrinkage of the BBC in terms of what it does. I can see both sides to that. I do fear the BBC would rapidly decline if it were to lose the licence fee. But at the same time the licence fee is becoming increasingly anachronistic.
     
  4. 8115

    8115 Jeremy Beremy.

    I don't think the licence fee is becoming anachronistic. People are increasingly opting in to the BBC rather than out of, it's competing for market share with things like Netflix, Sky Atlantic etc etc. Sure, if you have a tv at home it's something you have to pay but an increasing number of people watch tv on their computers. Maybe you could change the link to having a tv, so that people can watch tv on a tv without paying the licence fee, but not get BBC channels. Also be interesting to see figures on how many people do use platforms where the licence fee is an opt in, as opposed to necessary.
     
    PursuedByBears likes this.
  5. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    8115 I like the idea of paying when you watch BBC.

    I only watch the TV on a Friday night and then only BBC1 and BBC2 - and I watch that on my computer more often than not, it irks me that I have to pay as much as people who watch all week and or have multiple viewers and likely multiple screens.

    Pay as you watch / use - or general taxation :) that has me interested.
     
  6. 8115

    8115 Jeremy Beremy.

    That's not exactly what I meant, but it's another idea
     
  7. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Oh sorry, I must have misunderstood.
     
  8. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Right now I am in a house where they have terrestial, including freeview, and netflix and prime and a tivo type box, yet more often than not they can't find something to watch. The mind boggles.

    And there is no light from Spain, where they have a little bit of a drama followed by 20 minutes of ads, the ads are spaced across channels so people end up watching two dramas flicking from one to the other as the ads come on. TV in Spain is basically broken.
     
    8115 likes this.
  9. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    Fuck general taxation. People who don't want to watch their shite shouldn't have to pay for it.
    Make it PPV, and let the cunts sink or swim on their own merits.
     
    weltweit likes this.
  10. scifisam

    scifisam feck! arse! girls! drink!

    It's probably worth it for CBeebies and CBBC alone. They're SO much better than the other channels and I love not having adverts on kids' TV, partly because then kids don't see adverts, and partly because adverts aimed at children are usually really annoying. Nelly fucking Kelly :mad:
     
    8115 and weltweit like this.
  11. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Who are Nelly and Kelly and why are their sexual antics being shown to children?
     
    farmerbarleymow and Kaka Tim like this.
  12. wayward bob

    wayward bob i ate all your bees

    i genuinely love the bbc - the more i watch the youtubes and the netflix the more i appreciate it. i pay the license but prolly don't have to :facepalm:
     
  13. hash tag

    hash tag member

    Some good television, no adverts. Some excellent radio, still no adverts. The website as well. Much happier to pay that licence fee than contribute to sky, to virgin, Netflix, Amazon etc.
     
  14. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    You say there are no adverts, but that isn't strictly true, the BBC always has time for plenty of professional adverts promoting their own content.
     
    SpookyFrank likes this.
  15. hash tag

    hash tag member

    + some good podcasts and apps.
     
  16. hash tag

    hash tag member

    Not shitty ones from gambling sites. Supermarkets, junk food places etc.
     
  17. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    You can see that that's a different kind of thing, though, no?

    The best argument in favour of the licence fee is the state of state broadcasting elsewhere, tbh. We should be careful what we wish for.
     
  18. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Indeed, and my preference is that the BBC remain broadly as ad free as it is at the moment. The general taxation route and pay per view options would neither require the BBC to be funded by ads.
     
  19. hash tag

    hash tag member

    The BBC is a fine institution. I have no wish to engage with pfv unless absoutely pushed into a corner.
     
  20. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    The best argument against the license fee is "Fuck off. I didn't sign up for it!"
     
  21. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I am not sure I can. If C4 wants to promote its own content it has to do that at the expense of not screening a paid for ad in its place. The BBC has none of this opportunity cost when promoting its own wares.

    I do like the BBC output, I am not a critic of that, but as someone who is watching the pennies and finding ever more genuine demands on my limited funds, I resent paying a full licence when I only watch - just me - one evening a week and only on one device.
     
    greenfield likes this.
  22. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    It is if you're a pedophile looking to work in an industry with like-minded people.
     
  23. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Thing is, it's exactly this - that we didn't sign up for it - that gives us the moral force to question it, to demand better from it. This is very far from perfect, of course, but comparisons with elsewhere show how much worse it could be.
     
  24. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    I'm talking in terms of the viewer, primarily. I give little shit about the opportunity costs of C4. They're not trying to sell you anything. And they never stop a programme part-way through to try to promote something else. It's qualitatively different in its effect on the viewer, especially wrt children's tv.
     
    scifisam likes this.
  25. hash tag

    hash tag member

    Nobody says you have to watch it, or listen to it.
     
  26. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    But it should be an opt-in service. You don't even get the chance to opt out.
    The BBC could scramble their signal, like Sky do, and only those who wish to pay for it would/should pay for it.
     
  27. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    tbf that's never been a defence when you get done for not paying the licence. :D
     
    Saul Goodman likes this.
  28. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    But you still have to pay for it, even if you choose not to watch/listen?
     
  29. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Yes, the effect on the viewer is different, indeed.
     
  30. hash tag

    hash tag member

    There are many people on low incomes who don't pay a licence fee. If they didn't get the been for free they would get very little television.
    if been went pfv, the remains free Chanel's would probably follow that lead.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice